Really Interesting Case On Bill Oreilly

[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'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

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

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 As to bull charges when did that ever get in the way

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 As to bull charges when did that ever get in the way

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.

this is an old post, but those are some really great points.