Really Interesting Case On Bill Oreilly

[muchspl2]

so this lady is knocked up with 2 kids..

the doctors tell her that if she doesn't have a c-section, that one of her babies will die. She refuses to do the c-section. She delivers one baby ok, the other dies. They have charged her with murder after an autopsy proved that if she had a a c-section, the other baby would have lived. The reason she gave for not wanting to have the c-section was she didn't want a scar.

http://www.billoreilly.com

I'm pretty sure she will get off, but this is one of those cases that 10% thinks she should have some penalty :/

[Busyman]

If anything she was a vain, selfish bitch.

The health of the children comes before bullshit vanity.

Now that I think of it, she should be penalized.

The problem is that the doctor's gave her an option.
It's a catch-22

No c-section - baby dies
C-section - lawsuit

[muchspl2]

she looks like a crack whore :/
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/story.rowland.ap.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/moth...d.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/index.html)

[h1]

Even if she was mentally ill (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114016,00.html), this selfish, uncaring bitch deserves to get stoned in the streets.

[kAb]

... what a farking arsehole.

Don't have kids if you aren't willing to do whatever it takes to keep them alive.

[Arm]

Charge her with murder because she made a choice that led to the death of one of her unborn babies. Souds like excessive and injustice to me.

How about not charge her with anything because it's her choice what she wants done with her body and not anyone elses?

[h1]

Originally posted by Arm@13 March 2004 - 13:43
How about not charge her with anything because it's her choice what she wants done with her body and not anyone elses?
:angry: At the expense of a human life? It does not matter if it is a fetus, it is still a life. POINT BLANK. At the very least she should get slapped with reckless endangerment, manslaughter, and have the other child removed from her custody.

[4play]

you all seemed to have missed the point that a c section is a pretty big operation.

her actions are questionable but charging a rather hormonally unbalanced woman with murder is a bit strong. you do realise (in britain anyway) that if a woman kills her baby within the first year of its birth it is not murder it is infantacide which carries a lesser penalty. this is due to the fact woman can become very depressed after giving birth.

[leftism]

Very interesting.

Should we now expect pregnant mothers who drink, smoke and take drugs to be prosecuted for murder if their babies die?

It's the same thing, they ignore medical advice and their child dies, so why not prosecute them all?

[Biggles]

A C-section is not a like having a tooth out. Mrs Biggles had an emergency C-section with our first and ended up on a drip for 10 days and took nearly a year to fully recover.

It could equally be argued that nature took its course. One cannot hi-jack people off the street and operate on them against their will. Medical advice is just that - advice.

Muchspl - I have no idea who the lady is, but I would like to see you after you have given birth to twins, one of which died, and then be told you are going to be prosceuted for opting for a natural birth. I suspect she did not look like Britney before the episode began, but it seems unreasonable to me to expect her to look so afterwards. :blink:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by leftism@13 March 2004 - 23:16
Very interesting.

Should we now expect pregnant mothers who drink, smoke and take drugs to be prosecuted for murder if their babies die?

It's the same thing, they ignore medical advice and their child dies, so why not prosecute them all?
Good point, well made.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@13 March 2004 - 23:35
A C-section is not a like having a tooth out. Mrs Biggles had an emergency C-section with our first and ended up on a drip for 10 days and took nearly a year to fully recover.

It could equally be argued that nature took its course. One cannot hi-jack people off the street and operate on them against their will. Medical advice is just that - advice.

Muchspl - I have no idea who the lady is, but I would like to see you after you have given birth to twins, one of which died, and then be told you are going to be prosceuted for opting for a natural birth. I suspect she did not look like Britney before the episode began, but it seems unreasonable to me to expect her to look so afterwards. :blink:
Another good point, well made.

[J'Pol]

I know that Mrs JPaul would have had the section and that I would have supported her in it. Given that women can have an elective section for many reasons, it is a risk she would have been prepared to take in order to save our child. It would seem to us to be the moral thing to do.

I await hobbes' explanation on risking one's life in order to save another as being a purely selfish thing.

That however does not mean that I support the rationale that she should be prosecuted for murder for not doing it. I believe that murder would require her to take action, or remain inactive, with a view to causing the death.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism@13 March 2004 - 23:16
Very interesting.

Should we now expect pregnant mothers who drink, smoke and take drugs to be prosecuted for murder if their babies die?

It's the same thing, they ignore medical advice and their child dies, so why not prosecute them all?
I don't think the situations are comparable.

Smoking, drinking, and drugs are associated with an increased risk of poor fetal outcome and death is not one of them. Drugs do not kill babies directly. Most who engage in these activities have perfectly healthy babies (except for the crackheads who have babies who are born in withdrawl).

So we cannot compare a statistical possiblity to an overt act of neglect (see below).


Since her actual medical records are private, I will assume the likely scenario. She probably presented to the doctors with vaginal bleeding or contractions.

They likely examined her with ultrasound and found that the affected fetus was in distress with a depressed heart-rate. As the monitering continued the fetal distress increased to the point that doctors told her C-section or death of the fetus. Whatever the actual scenario, doctors have devised a biophysical profile that, when unequivical, indicates impending death.

She said that she'd really rather not have a scar, and did not voice concern over the surgical risk.

As for the C-section, it is advised to both improve the outcome of the fetus and mother. A dead fetus is a considerable risk for complications that can kill both the mother and other twin.

As I see it, she made a vain and uninformed decision (risking her own life as well).

But, if you look at her picture, you can see that this woman is schizophrenic. They have a pretty typical affect. So I doubt she is mentally competent to make decisions for herself anyway.

As for my opinion, hard to say. But I do agree that we cannot just strap people down for a surgery they do not want. I don't think "murder" is the correct description, but certainly she did something wrong. How she could just sit in the hospital and watch her fetal heart moniter until the baby died, is beyond me. What kind of mother could do that?

[Biggles]

Hobbes

It is certainly true that Mrs Biggles' C-section was primarily to save her life, the fact that we also got a healthy son who hopes to study sarcasm at university level was just an added blessing (I think).

Whilst it is easy to condemn the mistakes of others, it is less easy to determine their state of mind and the stress and/or distress they were under when they made them. It is a truism that if we were all of sound and balanced mind then these things would not happen. Alas.....

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J'Pol@13 March 2004 - 23:46
I await hobbes' explanation on risking one's life in order to save another as being a purely selfish thing.


1. When has Hobbes ever said anything like this?

2. Hobbes did comment that he does not need a "God" to tell him "right from wrong", as he understand that "morality" stems from a recognition of selfish behavior.

If the mother were to become the dying fetus, would she still make the same decision. Hell no, she would be dead! So she can obviously realize that ignoring the dying child would be SELFISH behavior on her part ( a desire to avoid a scar) and thus she can appreciate that to ignore this child would be "morally" wrong. It's that whole "do unto others..." thingy.

I think this is pretty cut and dry.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@14 March 2004 - 00:23
Hobbes

It is certainly true that Mrs Biggles' C-section was primarily to save her life, the fact that we also got a healthy son who hopes to study sarcasm at university level was just an added blessing (I think).

Whilst it is easy to condemn the mistakes of others, it is less easy to determine their state of mind and the stress and/or distress they were under when they made them. It is a truism that if we were all of sound and balanced mind then these things would not happen. Alas.....
Biggles,

Sarcasm and irony are not college "majors", they are a lifestyle! ;)

As for this lady, I think she is crazier than a shithouse rat from the odd affect she is displaying in her picture. The key is the agape mouth and the unfocused eyes. This expression is not to be confused with exhaustion. I am guessing on this though.

I think this case is so remarkable because most women would immediately opt for the c-section, but this lady is not "most women".

[Wizard_Mon1]

On one level, i think it is similar to abortion in that, a women chooses to terminate her baby because she doesn't think the circumstances are right. However, if her choice was based upon her physical apperance rather than physical trauma then punishment should be to have the scar anyway, not prosecution for murder.

If she is prosecuted for then the judge that sentences her, he should be sued for depriving two children of their mother.

If she is mentally ill she needs treatment and re-education into society not alienation.

This brings up questions of when is it considered killing another human.

Personally, i think that it is still part of the mother until it is born. So really what happens to it is her perogative(sp). If she chooses to let it die because of physical apperance then what caused her to think like that should be investigated and dealt with. If society doesn't reflect on its bad points then it could well happen agin to other mothers who are brought up to value apperance over life.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

You may well be right about the mental state of the lady. I have no idea when the picture was taken nor what medication if any she was on at the time. I was merely taken aback by some of the leaps to judgement by some of the earlier 12 good men and true. <_<

Re: sarcasm - he is walking the walk, but feels that the academic stimulus of a likeminded campus would enhance his natural attributes.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@14 March 2004 - 00:49
Hobbes

You may well be right about the mental state of the lady. I have no idea when the picture was taken nor what medication if any she was on at the time. I was merely taken aback by some of the leaps to judgement by some of the earlier 12 good men and true.&nbsp; <_<

Re: sarcasm - he is walking the walk, but feels that the academic stimulus of a likeminded campus would enhance his natural attributes.
15 where we practice our art, but otherwise I can do naught but agree.

Let Bigglet watch others. He may have been tutored at the feet of a master, but at the very least he will be able to see worked examples of how not to do it by attending University. Or worst case scenario a poly, Strathclyde springs to mind.

For no reason I suspect St Andrews as being his choice though.

[3RA1N1AC]

remember that time Bill O&#39;Reilly got Ludacris kicked off of a Pepsi ad campaign, and then Ludacris shot back with accusations that O&#39;Reilly was picking on him because he&#39;s a racial minority? CLASSIC. i&#39;m sure that if this woman were of the blue-blooded upper crust variety rather than looking like "queen of the trailer park," or if she were somebody like Pat Buchanan, O&#39;Reilly would still be all over it like the proverbial hobo on a ham sandwich.

or maybe not.

if you look at some of the other stories currently on the front page of BillOReilly.com, you might get the impression that he tends mainly to go after people of certain ideologies and ethni... errr... i mean, "cultural backgrounds," etc. quelle surprise. you might even think he&#39;s gone to war against certain ethni... oops... cultures and heritages.

Thur. 3/11: Reebok defends deal with "gangsta" rapper 50 Cent -- Bill vows to throw out his Reeboks. Plus -- the U.S. House of Representatives cracks down on Howard Stern and "shock jocks" with powerful new legislation.

Wed. 3/10: The Culture War -- Bill exposes the secular agenda of The New York Times and columnist Frank Rich. Premium Members: This is an all-time classic Radio Factor program -- check it out&#33;
maybe i just mistakenly get this impression because the phrase "Culture War" is plastered all over the site.

[Busyman]

She actually broke no laws.
If a jury convicts, it&#39;s based purely on emotion.

While she is an asshole, it was elective surgery that carries a mortal risk.

I these grounds the state&#39;s case holds no water.

The father needs to just put a foot in her ass. :lol: :lol:

btw, if I was the state, I would sic child welfare on her just to check up on her every once in awhile (more often than normal). ;)

[muchspl2]

knew she was cracked out :lol:

Now, there&#39;s new information. Prosecutors say the surviving baby had cocaine and alcohol in her system.

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/communit...sp#20040316-002 (http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/tvshow.jsp#20040316-002)

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by muchspl2@17 March 2004 - 02:11
knew she was cracked out :lol:

Now, there&#39;s new information. Prosecutors say the surviving baby had cocaine and alcohol in her system.

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/communit...sp#20040316-002 (http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/tvshow.jsp#20040316-002)
Yer, she did look a bit of a mess but i withheld my judgement, know however i can say she is a crack fiend.

[shn]

Something not brought into this world yet really does not have a choice. While being in "her" body in all actuality she should be able to do what she wants...........crack whore or Miss America, it really does not matter. It&#39;s her choice. :)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by shn@19 March 2004 - 23:06
Something not brought into this world yet really does not have a choice. While being in "her" body in all actuality she should be able to do what she wants...........crack whore or Miss America, it really does not matter. It&#39;s her choice. :)
How is that "something" not brought into the World yet.

You may think that unborn children have no rights (I totally disagree) but to describe them as "something" and suggest they are not on the earth is both prepostrous and offensive.

Is your position that 30 seconds after you leave your mothers body you have human rights, but 30 seconds before you leave it you do not. On what basis would that be.

[ilw]

The baby (before birth) is physically part of the mother, both have rights, but you can&#39;t really decide who&#39;s rights take precedence. Once the baby has left the mother they are two separate entities and at that point what affects one does not necessarily affect the other. The actual process of giving birth and physically separating mother from child makes a big difference.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by ilw@21 March 2004 - 01:07
The baby (before birth) is physically part of the mother, both have rights, but you can&#39;t really decide who&#39;s rights take precedence. Once the baby has left the mother they are two separate entities and at that point what affects one does not necessarily affect the other. The actual process of giving birth and physically separating mother from child makes a big difference.
You say "both have rights", as such you identify them as seperate beings, "both" indicating two people.

You say "both have rights", giving the unborn baby human rights.

You say "both have rights, but you can&#39;t really decide who&#39;s rights take precedence", giving the baby equal rights to the mother.

I agree with you.

You say "The actual process of giving birth and physically separating mother from child makes a big difference." I don&#39;t see how, given what we have already agreed.

[shn]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@20 March 2004 - 15:55

You may think that unborn children have no rights (I totally disagree) but to describe them as "something" and suggest they are not on the earth is both prepostrous and offensive.


I would say a lot of "things" on this earth are indeed absurd as they are quite offensive.

And it&#39;s actually quite interesting that people like you can rant, rave, and even blow up a clinic or two or assasinate a few abortion doctors and still think your claims have merit. Yeah, I know I actually just stereotyped you, but you stereotyped me as well.

Just because I call the baby a "something" and not by it&#39;s species (human-being) does not mean I do not have regard for "it" or think that "it" should not have rights. I do however think the rights of the mother should supercede that of an unborn infant. After all, the mother is the creator of that child (in part) and therefore should be able to exercise her explicit consent wether she wants to give birth to it or not.

If "something" does not have a "name" then it&#39;s just something is it not?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by shn+21 March 2004 - 20:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shn &#064; 21 March 2004 - 20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@20 March 2004 - 15:55

You may think that unborn children have no rights (I totally disagree) but to describe them as "something" and suggest they are not on the earth is both prepostrous and offensive.


I would say a lot of "things" on this earth are indeed absurd as they are quite offensive.

And it&#39;s actually quite interesting that people like you can rant, rave, and even blow up a clinic or two or assasinate a few abortion doctors and still think your claims have merit. Yeah, I know I actually just stereotyped you, but you stereotyped me as well.

Just because I call the baby a "something" and not by it&#39;s species (human-being) does not mean I do not have regard for "it" or think that "it" should not have rights. I do however think the rights of the mother should supercede that of an unborn infant. After all, the mother is the creator of that child (in part) and therefore should be able to exercise her explicit consent wether she wants to give birth to it or not.

If "something" does not have a "name" then it&#39;s just something is it not? [/b][/quote]
.....and don&#39;t forget unknown gender. You cannot refer to it as a he or she.

Many things are cut and dry and this one of them. For the mother to be liable, she would have to proactively do something to endanger the baby.

The doctors could have put her to sleep and gave the Cesarian anyway albeit with a following lawsuit.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by leftism@13 March 2004 - 14:16
Very interesting.

Should we now expect pregnant mothers who drink, smoke and take drugs to be prosecuted for murder if their babies die?

It&#39;s the same thing, they ignore medical advice and their child dies, so why not prosecute them all?
the state where this woman lives actually have laws to protect unborn babies (i am not sure at which stage of pregnancy it comes into effect). a couple of years ago a woman was charged because she took drugs while pregnant....i shall have to try to post the story when i get time to research it....i got this info from the report on CNN so i am assuming they have the facts right...

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+22 March 2004 - 03:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 22 March 2004 - 03:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leftism@13 March 2004 - 14:16
Very interesting.

Should we now expect pregnant mothers who drink, smoke and take drugs to be prosecuted for murder if their babies die?

It&#39;s the same thing, they ignore medical advice and their child dies, so why not prosecute them all?
the state where this woman lives actually have laws to protect unborn babies (i am not sure at which stage of pregnancy it comes into effect). a couple of years ago a woman was charged because she took drugs while pregnant....i shall have to try to post the story when i get time to research it....i got this info from the report on CNN so i am assuming they have the facts right... [/b][/quote]
Hmmm now that&#39;s something to get her on.....because the c-section thing is a bust. ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by vidcc@21 March 2004 - 23:01
In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state&#39;s criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to follow her doctor&#39;s advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/index.html)

The item was already posted by muchspl2

Do you think that on a thinly related thought one could be charged with manslaughter if one doesn&#39;t give cpr to a person on the street that has a heart attack?, i know in some places you could be charged for not helping a cop

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+22 March 2004 - 17:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 22 March 2004 - 17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@21 March 2004 - 23:01
In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state&#39;s criminal homicide statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman failed to follow her doctor&#39;s advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/11/mother.charged.ap/index.html)

The item was already posted by muchspl2

Do you think that on a thinly related thought one could be charged with manslaughter if one doesn&#39;t give cpr to a person on the street that has a heart attack?, i know in some places you could be charged for not helping a cop [/b][/quote]
.....then that&#39;s a bullcrap charge.

I should not be forced to render aid to anyone.

And regarding CPR, what if they have a bunch of shit around their mouth.....

...even EMT&#39;s have masks.

[J'Pol]

I don&#39;t really understand the logic of a manslaughter charge based on failure to give first aid. Unless one uses Asimov&#39;s laws of robotics, in particular the part about allowing harm by inaction.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@22 March 2004 - 13:47

And regarding CPR, what if they have a bunch of shit around their mouth.....

...even EMT&#39;s have masks.
Use the holger nielsen method :D As to bull charges when did that ever get in the way :D

back on subject it will be interesting to see how this case concludes. We all have the benefit of hindsight and doctors can be wrong (even though on this occasion they were right). C sections carry just as much risk of death to the mother as any other similar operation so although i can see the doctors point i can also see the mothers side.
When will it stop? will an insurance company ever be charged because they don&#39;t give full coverage due to the scheme the employer supplies?

P.S. busy...did you get a chance to read the long article on the prescription drugs?...it really shows just how bad our polititions act.

[leftism]

Just playing devils advocate here but...

Why offer her a choice at all if her babies are going to die? Surely a forced C-section would be better than a dead child and a recently bereaved mother in jail?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+22 March 2004 - 18:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 22 March 2004 - 18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@22 March 2004 - 13:47

And regarding CPR, what if they have a bunch of shit around their mouth.....

...even EMT&#39;s have masks.
Use the holger nielsen method :D As to bull charges when did that ever get in the way :D

back on subject it will be interesting to see how this case concludes. We all have the benefit of hindsight and doctors can be wrong (even though on this occasion they were right). C sections carry just as much risk of death to the mother as any other similar operation so although i can see the doctors point i can also see the mothers side.
When will it stop? will an insurance company ever be charged because they don&#39;t give full coverage due to the scheme the employer supplies?

P.S. busy...did you get a chance to read the long article on the prescription drugs?...it really shows just how bad our polititions act. [/b][/quote]
And what was the mother&#39;s point? Not to have a scar?

Like I said, she needs a foot in the ass, but not jail time.

I did read the article. If you think about it, politicians are out to make money and to get elected/relelected to make more money. Why else wouldn&#39;t they "do the right thing?"

[vidcc]

Originally posted by leftism@22 March 2004 - 15:18
Just playing devils advocate here but...

Why offer her a choice at all if her babies are going to die? Surely a forced C-section would be better than a dead child and a recently bereaved mother in jail?
Medical ethics.
if the woman was unconsious after an accident the doctors have the right to perfom an emergency c section to save the lives of the babies given that there is nobody around to sign the consent form.
In this case she was awake and supposedly able to make a decision..she chose not to have the operation because she wanted to give birth naturally ( i heard somewhere she claims to have had a c section before so refutes the doctors claims she refused for cosmetic reasons )
A doctor cannot operate against a patients will....if he does he could be struck off for malpractice or even worse should the patient die during the operation be liable for murder.
it is a dangerous road to go down to force someone to have surgery against their will even though there are times when it seems madness not to.

[mogadishu]

Originally posted by Biggles@13 March 2004 - 17:35
A C-section is not a like having a tooth out. Mrs Biggles had an emergency C-section with our first and ended up on a drip for 10 days and took nearly a year to fully recover.

It could equally be argued that nature took its course. One cannot hi-jack people off the street and operate on them against their will. Medical advice is just that - advice.

Muchspl - I have no idea who the lady is, but I would like to see you after you have given birth to twins, one of which died, and then be told you are going to be prosceuted for opting for a natural birth. I suspect she did not look like Britney before the episode began, but it seems unreasonable to me to expect her to look so afterwards. :blink:
this is an old post, but those are some really great points.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

If the bitch didn&#39;t want them abort them in the first trimester, not when they are fully developed new born&#39;s.
I wonder what killed the still born a broken neck, collapsed rib cage, strangled from the cord or suffocation from compression ?

[shn]

Just watched CNN.

The murder charges have been dropped and looks like she is going to be pleading to a child endangerment charge instead. A bit lenient, but murder was way to harsh IMO. :)