Our Rights vs. Power Institutions
[email protected]
Hi All,
I thought that sharing this recent case would be appropriate considering we've been talking about a person's rights and the medical establishment and other powerful institutions trying to claim control over our bodies and children. Even though this case is in PA, it is the first of its kind and the impact of its outcome will have a profound effect across the country.
Warmly,
Regina
The Citizens Voicehome
Woman hits hospitals' stance that she agree to C-section
By Lisa Napersky , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer 01/17/2004A Plymouth
woman who was ordered by a Luzerne County judge to consent to a
Caesarean section delivery of her baby said Friday she was appalled by
the treatment she received at two area hospitals.
While she was in labor Tuesday night, Amber Marlowe, Academy Street,
Plymouth, said she spent hours defending her right to deliver her baby
vaginally.
She and her husband, John, drove to three different hospitals before she
found a doctor who would respect her wishes.
"It was very upsetting," stated Marlow, who gave birth vaginally to a
healthy baby girl Thursday morning in Moses Taylor Hospital, Scranton.
"All this just because I didn't want an operation."
After Marlowe refused to consent to a C-section and checked herself out
of Wilkes-Barre General Hospital Wednesday morning, the hospital took
legal action against her. Hospital workers claimed that an ultrasound
indicated Marlowe's fetus weighed 13 pounds and the lives of the mother
and the baby would be in jeopardy if the operation weren't performed.
At the request of Wyoming Valley Health Care Systems, Luzerne County
President Michael Conahan signed an order Wednesday appointing the
hospital as legal guardian for the unborn child.
Judge Conahan also ordered that the parents "are hereby temporarily
restrained from refusing to consent to a C-section delivery of their
unborn fetus if the professional medical judgment of WVHCS and the
treating obstetrician is that such a procedure is necessary."
The preliminary injunction ordering Marlowe to submit to the C-section
was delivered to her residence, but she never received the document.
"They kept wanting to cut me open to get the baby. I think they may have
actually sent police to our house, but we weren't home," said Marlowe.
"I kept telling them I've already had six kids, and the biggest one
weighed 12 pounds and there were no problems."
Marlowe said when she started having contractions Tuesday night, she
went to Mercy Hospital, Wilkes-Barre, because it was close to her home.
After medical personnel performed an ultrasound, Marlowe said she was
informed the baby was going to weigh more than 11 pounds and a doctor
insisted that she undergo a C-section operation, even though there were
no apparent problems.
"They told me there was no way they would let me deliver the baby
naturally because the doctor didn't want a lawsuit," said Marlowe. "I
had a friend who died during a C-section, and I was afraid to do it that
way."
Even when the couple offered to sign papers promising not to file a
lawsuit, the doctor refused, explained Marlowe. She said staff members
at Mercy Hospital called security when she told them she was leaving.
She and her husband next drove to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital. Marlowe
was admitted at 10 p.m., and a second ultrasound was done.
Doctors there reached the same conclusion as those at Mercy Hospital.
They also refused to deliver the baby vaginally, claiming it was too
dangerous because of the size of the fetus.
Throughout the night, said Marlowe, nurses and doctors told her "horror
stories" about how her baby was going to be handicapped if she didn't
have the operation. She checked herself out at 11 a.m.
"I told them, forget it - I'm leaving. Then I came up here (Moses
Taylor) and had my baby the proper way," she stated. "The doctor here
never even suggested a C-section.
They did an ultrasound and blood work and continued to monitor me, and
there was no problem." In the civil complaint filed against the
Marlowes, who are referred to as Jane and John Doe in court documents
because of patient confidentiality, plaintiffs are listed as the WVHCS
and Baby Doe.
"Even in the absence of present fetal distress and even with ongoing
fetal monitoring, a vaginal delivery of this size fetus could result in
complications occurring during the delivery ... and result in
unavoidable death or serious impairment to the baby," states the
complaint. "Baby Doe, a full term viable fetus, has certain rights,
including the right to have decisions made for it, independent of its
parents, regarding its health and survival."
According to the suit, John and Amber Marlowe cited religious reasons
for not wanting to have the operation. The complaint also states that
during one of Marlowe's previous pregnancies, the baby suffered shoulder
impairment because of the size of the fetus. The couple said neither
allegation is true, and that the main reason for wanting vaginal
delivery was fear of having an operation.
Marlowe said she and her husband are contemplating filing a lawsuit
against Mercy and General hospitals for causing them distress.
_______________________________________________________
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/7730516.htm
Posted on Sun, Jan. 18, 2004
Hospital faces fight in birth dispute
A now-moot Luzerne County court order for a Caesarian section will see a
challenge.
By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER tmorgan@...
WILKES-BARRE - Concerned his case could impact other pregnant women, a
Plymouth man said Friday he's working with a national reproductive
rights group to challenge a court order that sought to force his wife to
undergo a Caesarean section against her will.
John Marlowe said he's pressing on with the case - even though the order
is moot since his wife already gave birth to an 11 pound, 9 ounce baby -
because he doesn't want other couples to endure the stress they did as
they battled hospital officials regarding their decision.
"It's more than my wife. What happens to the next lady that goes in
there?" Marlowe said. "If they get away with this, what it's telling
people across the country is a hospital has a right to do what it wants,
and the woman has no rights."
Marlowe's wife, Amber, checked out against medical advice from
Wilkes-Barre General Hospital on Wednesday morning after physicians
there insisted she have a Caesarean section because of concerns about
the fetus' weight, which was estimated at 13 pounds. She later gave
birth vaginally at Moses Taylor Hospital in Scranton.
Unbeknownst to the Marlowes, after they left General Hospital, attorneys
for Wyoming Valley Healthcare System sought a court order to gain
guardianship of the fetus in case the Marlowes returned to their
hospital. The order, granted without the Marlowes' knowledge, forbade
them from refusing a Caesarean section if doctors there deemed it
medically necessary.
Kevin McDonald, spokesman for the health-care system, said Friday the
hospital stands by its decision to seek the order. "These were really
unique circumstances. We did what we believed was in the best interest
of the patient."
McDonald said as far as the health system is concerned the legal dispute
is over.
"The injunction was only effective if she came to our hospital and we
had to do a Caesarean section. Since that didn't happen, the order is
moot," he said.
But Lynn Paltrow, an attorney specializing in women's reproductive
rights, said the issue goes far deeper than the Marlowes.
"This is not a conflict between a pregnant woman and a fetus. It is a
conflict between a pregnant woman and her fetus against the raw power of
the state to impose an unnecessary surgical procedure on a woman's own
body."
Paltrow, of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women in New York City,
said she's working with the Marlowes to find a Pennsylvania attorney to
fight Conahan's order. She said she believes the couple might also have
a civil case against the hospital for violating their rights.
Marlowe said he and his wife are still considering their options and
might file suit seeking monetary damages. But he said money is not the
key factor motivating him.
"We're talking civil liberties issues, not suing for money," he said.
"Right now you have a judge saying a hospital has the right to claim
guardianship of an unborn fetus and guardianship after it is born.
That's unacceptable. We need to set a precedent that a hospital cannot
have higher rights than the parents."
I thought that sharing this recent case would be appropriate considering we've been talking about a person's rights and the medical establishment and other powerful institutions trying to claim control over our bodies and children. Even though this case is in PA, it is the first of its kind and the impact of its outcome will have a profound effect across the country.
Warmly,
Regina
The Citizens Voicehome
Woman hits hospitals' stance that she agree to C-section
By Lisa Napersky , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer 01/17/2004A Plymouth
woman who was ordered by a Luzerne County judge to consent to a
Caesarean section delivery of her baby said Friday she was appalled by
the treatment she received at two area hospitals.
While she was in labor Tuesday night, Amber Marlowe, Academy Street,
Plymouth, said she spent hours defending her right to deliver her baby
vaginally.
She and her husband, John, drove to three different hospitals before she
found a doctor who would respect her wishes.
"It was very upsetting," stated Marlow, who gave birth vaginally to a
healthy baby girl Thursday morning in Moses Taylor Hospital, Scranton.
"All this just because I didn't want an operation."
After Marlowe refused to consent to a C-section and checked herself out
of Wilkes-Barre General Hospital Wednesday morning, the hospital took
legal action against her. Hospital workers claimed that an ultrasound
indicated Marlowe's fetus weighed 13 pounds and the lives of the mother
and the baby would be in jeopardy if the operation weren't performed.
At the request of Wyoming Valley Health Care Systems, Luzerne County
President Michael Conahan signed an order Wednesday appointing the
hospital as legal guardian for the unborn child.
Judge Conahan also ordered that the parents "are hereby temporarily
restrained from refusing to consent to a C-section delivery of their
unborn fetus if the professional medical judgment of WVHCS and the
treating obstetrician is that such a procedure is necessary."
The preliminary injunction ordering Marlowe to submit to the C-section
was delivered to her residence, but she never received the document.
"They kept wanting to cut me open to get the baby. I think they may have
actually sent police to our house, but we weren't home," said Marlowe.
"I kept telling them I've already had six kids, and the biggest one
weighed 12 pounds and there were no problems."
Marlowe said when she started having contractions Tuesday night, she
went to Mercy Hospital, Wilkes-Barre, because it was close to her home.
After medical personnel performed an ultrasound, Marlowe said she was
informed the baby was going to weigh more than 11 pounds and a doctor
insisted that she undergo a C-section operation, even though there were
no apparent problems.
"They told me there was no way they would let me deliver the baby
naturally because the doctor didn't want a lawsuit," said Marlowe. "I
had a friend who died during a C-section, and I was afraid to do it that
way."
Even when the couple offered to sign papers promising not to file a
lawsuit, the doctor refused, explained Marlowe. She said staff members
at Mercy Hospital called security when she told them she was leaving.
She and her husband next drove to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital. Marlowe
was admitted at 10 p.m., and a second ultrasound was done.
Doctors there reached the same conclusion as those at Mercy Hospital.
They also refused to deliver the baby vaginally, claiming it was too
dangerous because of the size of the fetus.
Throughout the night, said Marlowe, nurses and doctors told her "horror
stories" about how her baby was going to be handicapped if she didn't
have the operation. She checked herself out at 11 a.m.
"I told them, forget it - I'm leaving. Then I came up here (Moses
Taylor) and had my baby the proper way," she stated. "The doctor here
never even suggested a C-section.
They did an ultrasound and blood work and continued to monitor me, and
there was no problem." In the civil complaint filed against the
Marlowes, who are referred to as Jane and John Doe in court documents
because of patient confidentiality, plaintiffs are listed as the WVHCS
and Baby Doe.
"Even in the absence of present fetal distress and even with ongoing
fetal monitoring, a vaginal delivery of this size fetus could result in
complications occurring during the delivery ... and result in
unavoidable death or serious impairment to the baby," states the
complaint. "Baby Doe, a full term viable fetus, has certain rights,
including the right to have decisions made for it, independent of its
parents, regarding its health and survival."
According to the suit, John and Amber Marlowe cited religious reasons
for not wanting to have the operation. The complaint also states that
during one of Marlowe's previous pregnancies, the baby suffered shoulder
impairment because of the size of the fetus. The couple said neither
allegation is true, and that the main reason for wanting vaginal
delivery was fear of having an operation.
Marlowe said she and her husband are contemplating filing a lawsuit
against Mercy and General hospitals for causing them distress.
_______________________________________________________
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/7730516.htm
Posted on Sun, Jan. 18, 2004
Hospital faces fight in birth dispute
A now-moot Luzerne County court order for a Caesarian section will see a
challenge.
By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER tmorgan@...
WILKES-BARRE - Concerned his case could impact other pregnant women, a
Plymouth man said Friday he's working with a national reproductive
rights group to challenge a court order that sought to force his wife to
undergo a Caesarean section against her will.
John Marlowe said he's pressing on with the case - even though the order
is moot since his wife already gave birth to an 11 pound, 9 ounce baby -
because he doesn't want other couples to endure the stress they did as
they battled hospital officials regarding their decision.
"It's more than my wife. What happens to the next lady that goes in
there?" Marlowe said. "If they get away with this, what it's telling
people across the country is a hospital has a right to do what it wants,
and the woman has no rights."
Marlowe's wife, Amber, checked out against medical advice from
Wilkes-Barre General Hospital on Wednesday morning after physicians
there insisted she have a Caesarean section because of concerns about
the fetus' weight, which was estimated at 13 pounds. She later gave
birth vaginally at Moses Taylor Hospital in Scranton.
Unbeknownst to the Marlowes, after they left General Hospital, attorneys
for Wyoming Valley Healthcare System sought a court order to gain
guardianship of the fetus in case the Marlowes returned to their
hospital. The order, granted without the Marlowes' knowledge, forbade
them from refusing a Caesarean section if doctors there deemed it
medically necessary.
Kevin McDonald, spokesman for the health-care system, said Friday the
hospital stands by its decision to seek the order. "These were really
unique circumstances. We did what we believed was in the best interest
of the patient."
McDonald said as far as the health system is concerned the legal dispute
is over.
"The injunction was only effective if she came to our hospital and we
had to do a Caesarean section. Since that didn't happen, the order is
moot," he said.
But Lynn Paltrow, an attorney specializing in women's reproductive
rights, said the issue goes far deeper than the Marlowes.
"This is not a conflict between a pregnant woman and a fetus. It is a
conflict between a pregnant woman and her fetus against the raw power of
the state to impose an unnecessary surgical procedure on a woman's own
body."
Paltrow, of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women in New York City,
said she's working with the Marlowes to find a Pennsylvania attorney to
fight Conahan's order. She said she believes the couple might also have
a civil case against the hospital for violating their rights.
Marlowe said he and his wife are still considering their options and
might file suit seeking monetary damages. But he said money is not the
key factor motivating him.
"We're talking civil liberties issues, not suing for money," he said.
"Right now you have a judge saying a hospital has the right to claim
guardianship of an unborn fetus and guardianship after it is born.
That's unacceptable. We need to set a precedent that a hospital cannot
have higher rights than the parents."