(Closed) Scary Article on Womens Right of a C-Section

posted 8 years ago in Babies
Post # 3
2588 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: February 2014

Disgusting. Reminds me of that “Personhood USA” crap…where, basically, the rights of the unborn fetus override the rights of the mother.

Post # 4
1645 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2010

That is absolutely disgusting and horrifying. The hospital staff should be arrested, as well as the social workers and law enforcement personnel involved. I know this is an extreme case, and definitely not typical, but this is exactly why I am concerned about giving birth in a hospital.

Post # 6
1940 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: July 2010

There is a lot more information in this article.

A few key points from this article:

  • During labor, V.M. “behaved erratically” and at some point refused to consent to a cesarean section, despite her doctor’s concerns about fetal distress. The obstetrician ordered an emergency psychiatric evaluation, which found that “V.M. was not psychotic and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the c-section.” The staff then asked for a second opinion, but before the next psychiatrist could complete his evaluation, the baby was born vaginally.
  • From the appellate court “irrespective of whether or not V.M. consented to the c-section, there was sufficient credible evidence to support a finding of abuse and neglect as to V.M. The majority therefore eschews any discussion of the issue of c-section
  • Well, apparently, neither parent showed up to the first court hearing, days after J.M.G. was born, and when a caseworker called to ask where they were, B.G. answered, claimed he was not B.G., and claimed not to know who the caseworker was or anything about a hearing. Thus J.M.G. was placed in foster care. After the next hearing, where V.M.’s history of psychiatric illness and refusal to take prescribed medication came up, two psychologists who attempted to evaluate V.M. and B.G. ended up getting restraining orders against them; the second “was assaulted in the parents’ home.” Additionally, “The group contracted to provide parenting classes stated that it could not provide V.M. with services absent a psychological evaluation due to her disruptive and uncontrollable behavior.” Oh, and somewhere in there, V.M. claimed she had consented to a c-section, despite all evidence to the contrary.


It goes on and on but my point is that there is a lot more to the story than the C-section.  The court did not base the decision on the C-section, rather all of other things that were happening (psychiatric illness of both parents, not showing up to court cases, the parents assaulting people, etc).

Post # 7
377 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: October 2010

EvaBoston, I was really alarmed by this so I Googled the story as well! It does seem like in this particular case, there was more to the story than just the C-section. Of course the courts are telling their side and the family is telling theirs so we can’t know for sure what happened, but this does not seem like a case of C-section = losing the baby.

It still brings up some interesting questions about your rights. The reason they started the child welfare investigation was, in part, due to the C-section issue. 

Post # 8
2425 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: December 2009

While is seems odd that this would happen, I’m glad EvaBoston commented.  I was thinking there had to be more to this story.  While I would hate to be forced into consenting to anything, I also realize that during labor I may not be in the right frame of mind to make a rational decision…therefore, I would have been happy there was a plan in place.  Especially if my child (hate the word fetus) were in danger.  I know everyone is different, but there is no way I am just going to sit by and say no to a procedure knowing full well it would put the baby in danger.  You’ve heard of moms that will do anything for a child, give their life, etc….why should that start only after a child is born (assuming that you want the baby)? 

Post # 9
14183 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2009

Good detective work, EvaBostonTerrier! I know C-sections aren’t ideal, but if my obgyn, whom i trust, says i need one, i’m getting one.

Post # 10
482 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2011

This is a really frustrating article.  On one hand, you have the woman’s right to choose what she will/won’t do with her body.  On the other hand, you have a doctor completing a psychiatric evaluation because they feel that this woman’s choice was not the right one?

Regardless of whether or not this woman has psychiatric issues, the way that this situation was handled from the beginning is saddening. 

Post # 11
1940 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: July 2010

@vanilla frosting – Yes, bioethics are very frustrating.  For me, the question is whether it is ethical for medical staff to allow a pregnant woman in labor to cause severe life-long disabilities (or worse, death) of the fetus in her without trying to intervene?  Yes, this case turned out fine (the baby was born healthy), but what it the situation had went the other way?  Should medical personnel just let the baby die because a mother doesn’t want treatment?  

Here is some more information I found citing the New Jersey appellate court documents.

“[VM]…consented to the administration of intravenous fluids, antibiotics, oxygen, fetal heart rate monitoring, an episiotomy3 and an epidural anesthetic.

She refused to consent to any other invasive treatment, however, including a c-section or fetal scalp stimulation. Hospital personnel explained the potentially dire consequences of not allowing a c-section in the event of fetal distress, but V.M. remained adamant in her refusal.

In the hospital records, V.M. is described as “combative,” “uncooperative,” “erratic,” “noncompliant,” “irrational” and “inappropriate.” She ordered the attending obstetrician, Dr. Shetal Mansuria, to leave the room and told her if she did not do what V.M. said, she would be off the case. V.M. then threatened to report the doctor to the police.

In fact, at one point V.M. did call the Livingston Police to report that she was being abused and denied treatment. She told a nurse that “no one is going to touch my baby.” She continuously refused to wear the face mask that provided her with oxygen and also refused to remain still in order to allow for fetal heart monitoring. She thrashed about to the extent that it was unsafe for the anesthesiologist to administer an epidural. She would not allow Dr. Mansuria to touch the baby or perform an ultrasound examination.

Throughout this entire period, V.M. “was very boisterous and yelling and screaming at the top of her lungs.” B.G. was present while all of these events occurred. Dr. Mansuria explained the complications, such as brain damage, mental retardation and fetal death, that could occur if the fetus went into distress and a c-section was not performed. She also explained that an examination revealed a “nonreassuring fetal status.”

B.G. said that he understood the risks, but V.M. would not consent to the procedure. The hospital responded appropriately to confront V.M.’s mental state and her refusal to consent to the c-section. After considering V.M.’s “extreme behavior” and signs of developing fetal distress, the hospital staff requested an emergency psychiatric evaluation to determine V.M.’s competency.

Post # 12
3176 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: May 2011

While reading this article, I had the same feelings that there was way more to this story then just how it read. I think we can all pretty much agree that if it was JUST someone saying they’d prefer not to have a c-section and then the baby was taken away that that would be wrong, but obviously there was and is more to this story. I was happy to come back and read the comments and see that yes there actually was more. Thanks EvaBostonTerrier

Post # 13
1288 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2010 - Indiana Memorial Union

I can’t find the article now, but there was a pregnant woman in Florida whose doctor ordered her to go on bedrest for a very long time. She had a work situation that prevented it, so she refused. Her doctor went to a judge and got a court order forcing her to go on bedrest.

Interestingly, Sarah Palin loves to tell the story of how she was working in Texas when she went into labor and flew back to Alaska before going to a hospital. Interesting how some people have choices.

Post # 14
13096 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2010

I was just about to post the same article that EvaBostonTerrier is refering too!  There is definitely a lot more to this story than the first article would have you believe ….

Post # 15
7081 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: July 2009

Like KMM I was also going to present the same info that Eva did, but probably not nearly as well as she did!  Hooray Eva!

Post # 16
11325 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: February 2011

I think Eva’s article pretty clearly shows that we didn’t get the whole story. 

In terms of whether a mother has a right to refuse medical treatment that could save her baby’s life… sorry I’m going to have to side with the doctors on this one. IF we lived in a nation where abortion was illegal then I would side with the mother saying that she’s had no choice but to carry this baby to term and she shouldn’t have to take any risks (like C-section) she isn’t comfortable with to protect the baby. But that is not the case. Any woman who makes it that far along in pregnancy has CHOSEN to have that baby. And at that stage? I feel you’ve given up some of your rights in regards to how that child will be protected. 

The topic ‘Scary Article on Womens Right of a C-Section’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors