Woman forced to have C section

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bet that had she delivered vaginally and there was a bad outcome, she would have sued the hospital.

Probably but hospital can't force C-section to avoid lawsuit, it has to be medically warranted and patient should've a choice to sign a waiver and do as they please, if its covered by their insurance.

May be this woman was worried about high hospital bill tied to a C-section?

It isn’t fear of a lawsuit; it’s fear of death for the patient. They have risk measurements. Obesity, 2/3 prior sections, and a labor not progressing are not good indicators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi, feminist here. I warned you that when Roe fell, women would be treated as incubators and have fewer rights than a corpse. Why are you acting surprised? You prioritized the fetus, and now you don’t have any rights if your exercise of them could harm the fetus.

It won’t be long before we start imprisoning obese moms to force them to work out on low cal diets, and underweight moms to tube feed. (We’re already imprisoning moms on drugs). We warned you, stop sticking your head in the sand and playing stupid.

They were imprisoning drug using moms before Roe fell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bet that had she delivered vaginally and there was a bad outcome, she would have sued the hospital.

Probably but hospital can't force C-section to avoid lawsuit, it has to be medically warranted and patient should've a choice to sign a waiver and do as they please, if its covered by their insurance.

May be this woman was worried about high hospital bill tied to a C-section?

It isn’t fear of a lawsuit; it’s fear of death for the patient. They have risk measurements. Obesity, 2/3 prior sections, and a labor not progressing are not good indicators.

So what? People are allowed to refuse lifesaving medical care in every other context. We don't strap people down and pump unwanted chemotherapy into their bodies. Why should this be any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bet that had she delivered vaginally and there was a bad outcome, she would have sued the hospital.

Probably but hospital can't force C-section to avoid lawsuit, it has to be medically warranted and patient should've a choice to sign a waiver and do as they please, if its covered by their insurance.

May be this woman was worried about high hospital bill tied to a C-section?

It isn’t fear of a lawsuit; it’s fear of death for the patient. They have risk measurements. Obesity, 2/3 prior sections, and a labor not progressing are not good indicators.

So what? People are allowed to refuse lifesaving medical care in every other context. We don't strap people down and pump unwanted chemotherapy into their bodies. Why should this be any different?

Probably because there's another "body" that's involved. I'm pretty sure the scenario you imagined could get complicated as well for conjoined twins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with a C-section.

There is. Do your research, troll.

DP. There are things that can go wrong with a c-section, but it is still medically safer than delivering vaginally once you get to 39 weeks gestation, even if we're not talking about a VBAC.

Not safer long-term for the mother and not safer for future pregnancies. But if you’re a pro lifer who thinks the mother is just an incubator, then sure “safer”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bet that had she delivered vaginally and there was a bad outcome, she would have sued the hospital.

Probably but hospital can't force C-section to avoid lawsuit, it has to be medically warranted and patient should've a choice to sign a waiver and do as they please, if its covered by their insurance.

May be this woman was worried about high hospital bill tied to a C-section?

It said she had to care for family, including her mother, which complicates the matter significantly. The fact of the matter is that women are caregivers and society doesn't understand this. I do think people should have the agency to make dumb decisions, but society is going about this all wrong. If you're a single mother with kids and elderly parents at home, there often aren't a lot, if any, available, affordable resources. Even if not single, presumably her DH is away at work all day. People are one decision away from ruin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bet that had she delivered vaginally and there was a bad outcome, she would have sued the hospital.

Probably but hospital can't force C-section to avoid lawsuit, it has to be medically warranted and patient should've a choice to sign a waiver and do as they please, if its covered by their insurance.

May be this woman was worried about high hospital bill tied to a C-section?

It isn’t fear of a lawsuit; it’s fear of death for the patient. They have risk measurements. Obesity, 2/3 prior sections, and a labor not progressing are not good indicators.

At some Catholic hospitals, they will not provide life-saving drugs for a woman unless they do a pregnancy test.

So the woman is not the high priority as your post makes it seem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bet that had she delivered vaginally and there was a bad outcome, she would have sued the hospital.

Probably but hospital can't force C-section to avoid lawsuit, it has to be medically warranted and patient should've a choice to sign a waiver and do as they please, if its covered by their insurance.

May be this woman was worried about high hospital bill tied to a C-section?

It isn’t fear of a lawsuit; it’s fear of death for the patient. They have risk measurements. Obesity, 2/3 prior sections, and a labor not progressing are not good indicators.

So what? People are allowed to refuse lifesaving medical care in every other context. We don't strap people down and pump unwanted chemotherapy into their bodies. Why should this be any different?

Because at 36+ weeks there's another actual life on the other side of the abdominal and uterine wall, and even under Roe, the state was allowed to assert its interest at that point in time.

[Anonymous]

Florida butchers women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, in the state of Florida, you can reject the life-saving measles vaccine for your child but if you're a woman, you have no autonomy to reject a C-section, and the hospital and state will fill up your room with people insisting you do what the judge tells you to do even if you know your own body and that you are able to give birth vaginally. All of a sudden, medical freedom doesn't exist in the state of Florida.

In Florida's defense, she is black.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 previous C sections, morbidly obese - lots of risk factors here. I’m very pro choice even though I really dislike abortion simply because I think an unwanted child is a tragedy, however, I’m mulling over this whole thing since we’re talking about full term babies who will possibly suffer lifelong consequences from a poor decision, but I still have concerns about female autonomy.

+1 But will it stop at the morbidly obese woman who may have required a c-section after all? What if you are thin, went through pre-birth classes, exercise and eat well, have a seasoned doula, and feel confident that you can get through a rough labor (I'm sure there are more than a handful of us on this site who fit this description)? For women in Florida and similar conservative states, are all bets off now? Can the hospital bring in the state because you're in labor a little too long for their taste and they know of a great judge who has a few minutes to yell at you from an iPad?

You're not going to like this answer, but the two women whose personal accounts were relayed in the article clearly didn't have an OBGYN that supported their decision and that was present at the labor.

The on call doctors didn't want the liability.

I think if the mom can't have it both ways - she can't use the resources of the hospital and completely ignore their advice. If she wanted freedom she should have delivered at home.

Yeah, why is she using a free government financed hospita--, oh, in Florida patients pay for their own hospital care?

Imagine if you walked into Walmart and they called the court to force you to eat a pepperoni pizza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This lady has her own agenda she is a natural birth activist doula

Cherise Gordon-Doyley is the CEO of Soul Sista Birth Services, LLC and the Executive Director of its Community Doula Program. With over seven years of experience as a birth and postpartum doula and more than a decade of personal breastfeeding experience, she brings deep compassion, cultural understanding, and real-life wisdom to the families she serves.

https://soulsistabirthservices.org/meet-our-doulas

And this case shows why we need her activism!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with a C-section.

There is. Do your research, troll.

DP. There are things that can go wrong with a c-section, but it is still medically safer than delivering vaginally once you get to 39 weeks gestation, even if we're not talking about a VBAC.

Not safer long-term for the mother and not safer for future pregnancies. But if you’re a pro lifer who thinks the mother is just an incubator, then sure “safer”.

No, I'm a doctor and not a pro-lifer, and I do not think the mother is an incubator.

It's just a matter of short and long term risk analysis. Vaginal deliveries are great. I have no problem if a pregnant woman wants to deliver vaginally, absent significant risk factors. I also don't think that offering induction at 39 weeks gestation is bad medicine, and I don't think women who elect to have a c-section (and those who provide them) are bad people.

We can talk about all of this without making unfounded judgments. Professional protocols are there for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This lady has her own agenda she is a natural birth activist doula

Cherise Gordon-Doyley is the CEO of Soul Sista Birth Services, LLC and the Executive Director of its Community Doula Program. With over seven years of experience as a birth and postpartum doula and more than a decade of personal breastfeeding experience, she brings deep compassion, cultural understanding, and real-life wisdom to the families she serves.

https://soulsistabirthservices.org/meet-our-doulas

And this case shows why we need her activism!

That's certainly a take on it, for given definitions of "shows," "need," and "activism."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 previous C sections, morbidly obese - lots of risk factors here. I’m very pro choice even though I really dislike abortion simply because I think an unwanted child is a tragedy, however, I’m mulling over this whole thing since we’re talking about full term babies who will possibly suffer lifelong consequences from a poor decision, but I still have concerns about female autonomy.

+1 But will it stop at the morbidly obese woman who may have required a c-section after all? What if you are thin, went through pre-birth classes, exercise and eat well, have a seasoned doula, and feel confident that you can get through a rough labor (I'm sure there are more than a handful of us on this site who fit this description)? For women in Florida and similar conservative states, are all bets off now? Can the hospital bring in the state because you're in labor a little too long for their taste and they know of a great judge who has a few minutes to yell at you from an iPad?

You're not going to like this answer, but the two women whose personal accounts were relayed in the article clearly didn't have an OBGYN that supported their decision and that was present at the labor.

The on call doctors didn't want the liability.

I think if the mom can't have it both ways - she can't use the resources of the hospital and completely ignore their advice. If she wanted freedom she should have delivered at home.

Yeah, why is she using a free government financed hospita--, oh, in Florida patients pay for their own hospital care?

Imagine if you walked into Walmart and they called the court to force you to eat a pepperoni pizza.

Patients have (or should have) autonomy. Providers also have autonomy. Physicians and nurses are not puppets for her to order around, and they don't have to do what she wants.