Woman Intentionally Refuses C-Section, Baby Dies

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2004-03-12 05:21am

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that accompany the surgery.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its January 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.

Court documents give no address for Rowland, and she isn't listed in area telephone books. An attorney was to be appointed for her Friday, Morgan said.

The charges carry five years to life in prison. Rowland was jailed on $250,000 bail.

According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City in December to seek advice after she hadn't felt her babies move. A nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she would rather have both babies die before going to either place.

On January 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies' slowing heart rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.

The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone."

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all stages of development are covered under the state'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's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," Driessen said.

I hope they throw the book at this bitch. That stupid law professor bitch Marguerite Driessen should also shut the fuck up. You do NOT have the choice to intentionally endanger your babies' lives when they're less than a month from birth!

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-03-12 05:35am

Also I agree that she should be punished murder seems a tad harsh.
Maybe because I see murder as something active.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-03-12 10:51am

Someone toss this towards the Right-to-Lifers. Use their stupidity against this bitch. It'd be funny.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-03-12 10:59am

CNN has her mug shot.

Mug Shot

Kind of makes the theory that she was avoiding a C-section for cosmetic reasons seem a little odd. Maybe she was just afraid of having surgery?

From the article I also got the impression that she would only go to the LDS Hospital and didn't want to go to the others.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-03-12 11:08am

Tsyroc wrote:CNN has her mug shot.

Mug Shot

Kind of makes the theory that she was avoiding a C-section for cosmetic reasons seem a little odd. Maybe she was just afraid of having surgery?

From the article I also got the impression that she would only go to the LDS Hospital and didn't want to go to the others.

Geebus! She got hit with the Ugly Stick and the Club of Much Stupidity? Well now she can look forward to the Needle of Death.

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2004-03-12 11:12am

Tsyroc wrote:CNN has her mug shot.

Mug Shot

Kind of makes the theory that she was avoiding a C-section for cosmetic reasons seem a little odd. Maybe she was just afraid of having surgery?

From the article I also got the impression that she would only go to the LDS Hospital and didn't want to go to the others.

Depends when she got the shot. If it was after her arrest, well nobody looks like a supermodel after giving birth.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-03-12 11:13am

True, plus I don't think people ever look good in mug shots. They are the only photos worse that those taken by the DMV.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-03-12 11:42am

If I ever become so selfish as to endanger someone else's life. I hope someone has the good sense to put me down. Slug-to-the-face. This is even worse than those Mormon fundies who think medicine is duh Devuhl. She was just being a selfish fuckwhore. She's a waste of carbon and the universe's volume. I wouldn't eat Soylent Green made from her.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-03-12 12:18pm

Tsyroc wrote:CNN has her mug shot.

Mug Shot

Kind of makes the theory that she was avoiding a C-section for cosmetic reasons seem a little odd. Maybe she was just afraid of having surgery?

From the article I also got the impression that she would only go to the LDS Hospital and didn't want to go to the others.

Local news reported that she has had a C-section earlier in life on another pregnacy. But yeah, when I watched it on the news, that was my first reaction, if anything the scare would probably make that look better.

Selfish bitch.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-12 12:32pm

She's a selfish bitch, but I don't think the charge of "murder" is applicable. There has to be some other more accurate charge such as reckless endangerment.

PS. If she was smart, she would have claimed religious reasons for her objection. Then she wouldn't be in jail right now, because it's entirely different when it's a religious belief.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-12 12:38pm

about the only thing i could think of is child negligence and possibly manslaughter charges. this is quite possibly the single most selfish, egotistic and vain bitch i've ever seen. whatever she gets she deserves the punishment for it.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-03-12 12:44pm

I'd think the most likely charge would be manslaughter and criminal negligance, the same ones that are brought against mothers that leave babies in the nearest dumpster. The question is, though, how much forewarning did she have that a c-section would be required? If she knew well ahead of time, then she would be obligated to have an abortion if a scar across her abdomen meant that much to her.

-Damien

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-12 12:48pm

CNN.Com wrote:An autopsy found the baby died two days before its January 13 delivery and that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9. The other baby is alive, but authorities had no further information.

i think that shows exactly how much forewarning she had. however, it's still a completely selfish decision. she should have known that a c-section might be required in case of complications, but instead she went ahead and decided to have a kid.

also note this excerpt from the article:

CNN.com wrote:"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-12 12:58pm

Darth_Zod wrote:also note this excerpt from the article:

CNN.com wrote:"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.

Not to defend this selfish bitch because she still took a highly unethical decision, but this statement is questionable. C-sections can lead to an extended and extremely painful recovery, which is worse for some women than others. A botched C-section can lead to an agonizing and extended period of suffering. For that matter, any invasive surgery (and cutting open your entire abdomen is certainly invasive) carries a non-trivial risk of death. There are legitimate reasons to avoid a C-section other than pure cosmetics.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-12 01:06pm

From the photo on the BBC. I can't see the procedure making her look much worse.

The BBC wrote:In a jailhouse interview with KSL Newsradio 1160, Ms Rowland denied she had been advised to have a C-section with the twins.

"I've never refused a C-section. I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?" Ms Rowland said.

Hmm

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-03-12 02:08pm

when her doctors urged her to, between Christmas and January 9.

Guess I should have read the article more thoroughly.

C-sections can lead to an extended and extremely painful recovery, which is worse for some women than others. A botched C-section can lead to an agonizing and extended period of suffering.

My sister was born through a C-section. About a week after the birth, the stitches on my mother broke. I agree, it is quite agonizing. A several week recovery turned into about half a year of surgery and physical/chemical therapy.

-Damien

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-12 03:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:also note this excerpt from the article:

CNN.com wrote:"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations" for the mother's decision, said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district attorney.
Not to defend this selfish bitch because she still took a highly unethical decision, but this statement is questionable. C-sections can lead to an extended and extremely painful recovery, which is worse for some women than others. A botched C-section can lead to an agonizing and extended period of suffering. For that matter, any invasive surgery (and cutting open your entire abdomen is certainly invasive) carries a non-trivial risk of death. There are legitimate reasons to avoid a C-section other than pure cosmetics.

True, but I think the DA was speaking about her state of mind in refusing the surgery (which is directly applicable to a murder charge). She may have had other reasons, but the reasons she voiced was a cosmetic concern.

I do think this is a tad harsh considering that faith based healing religions are allowed to endanger human life regularly, which in my book is no better than what this woman did. Both should be punished, but I'm not sure if murder is the way to go. Still, a murder charge is somewhat ambiguous; they may well decide to hit her with Manslaughter or Reckless Endangerment after the araignment, which I would have no problem with.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-03-12 03:35pm

While I think what she did is the height of selfishness and a real shitty thing to do, I think a person has the right to refuse being cut open.

I'd say to drop charges but remove the surviving child from her custody as she isn't fit to be a mother.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-03-12 04:46pm

The bitch is a selfish cunt who deserves a hysterectomy.

Darth Wong wrote:She's a selfish bitch, but I don't think the charge of "murder" is applicable. There has to be some other more accurate charge such as reckless endangerment.

PS. If she was smart, she would have claimed religious reasons for her objection. Then she wouldn't be in jail right now, because it's entirely different when it's a religious belief.

You forgot to put a

at the end of your last sentence.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-12 04:49pm

Korvan wrote:While I think what she did is the height of selfishness and a real shitty thing to do, I think a person has the right to refuse being cut open.

I'd say to drop charges but remove the surviving child from her custody as she isn't fit to be a mother.

there's always some potential risk in an operation. however in the article it wasn't mentioned that it would be a serious risk to the mother to have the operation. she willfully let her own child die by refusing to have the c-section. if this were any other form of negligence that caused a child to die, she would be brought up on charges. i still say the charges should be brought up.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-12 04:55pm

Fuck it, till you throw the religious fuckheads in jail, there's no reason to do anything to her, selfish bitch or not.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-03-12 04:56pm

Lazy Raptor wrote:If I ever become so selfish as to endanger someone else's life. I hope someone has the good sense to put me down. Slug-to-the-face. This is even worse than those Mormon fundies who think medicine is duh Devuhl. She was just being a selfish fuckwhore. She's a waste of carbon and the universe's volume. I wouldn't eat Soylent Green made from her.

Mormons do not beleive that medicine is of the Devil!

I live in Utah and I know these thing!

The babies in questions were weeks from birth when the proceedure was recomended. The truth of the matter is if the C-Section was done both babies weould have lived. She refuced the proceedure because she didn't want to be cut like that. And LDS Hospitol is one of the best in the State next to the University Hospital at The University of Utah.

Utah had the first Artificial Heart. University Hospitol invented the Heart Bypass unit in joint efforts with other hospitols. One of the Top leaders of the church is a Heart Surgion for goodness sake! Does that sound like Mormons do not believe in Medicine to you?

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2004-03-12 05:21pm

Sharp-kun wrote:From the photo on the BBC. I can't see the procedure making her look much worse.

The BBC wrote:In a jailhouse interview with KSL Newsradio 1160, Ms Rowland denied she had been advised to have a C-section with the twins.

"I've never refused a C-section. I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?" Ms Rowland said.
Hmm

Post a link to that please.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-12 05:25pm

Murder charge is excessive in this case. I'm disgusted, but she's not a murderer.

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2004-03-12 05:26pm

h0rus wrote: Post a link to that please.

Here you go!