The Orbis

A recent court case could force women to have medical procedures against their will. Photo courtesy of www.carms.ca [Click to enlarge]

Utah state prosecutors filed suit against Melissa Ann Rowland for the murder of her fetus after she refused to have a Cesarean section. Though doctors advised that this procedure would be life-saving for the infant, Rowland allegedly refused the C-section because she did not want the resulting abdominal scar.

Rowland refuted this seemingly selfish rationale: "It was all medical concern. None of it was vanity." Nurses claim that she left the hospital because she refused to let doctors "cut her from breast bone to pubic bone." She reported this only a day after prosecutors charged her with exhibiting "depraved indifference to human life" in avoiding the C-section.

Outside court, Deputy District Attorney Kent Morgan said the state dismissed the lesser charge of child endangerment to create "more ease of prosecution" in the murder case against Rowland. The child endangerment charge related to the surviving baby, which, according to prosecutors, was born with drugs and alcohol in her system as a result of Rowland's alleged drug use.

Morgan said Rowland's alleged drug use during her pregnancy will serve as a decisive factor in the murder case. He said pregnant drug users currently fail to show "the type of care and responsibility that we expect of mothers in the United States."

Rowland, however, claims that doctors never told her the procedure would save her remaining unborn child or that she needed emergency surgery. In fact, Rowland said that she had already undergone C-sections: "I've never refused a C-section. I've already had two prior C-sections. Why would I say something like that?" She also claims that doctors told her during repeated hospital visits that her babies were of normal health.

Many critics fear the pending results of this case, as it has the potential to undermine existing abortion rights and expand the basis of prosecution for women who smoke, ignore the diet recommendations of their obstetricians or act in any other way that may "endanger" a fetus.

Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women said, "There is no statute on the books in Utah to permit the prosecution of pregnant women for health problems, even if the health problem deals with a drug addiction."

Morgan rejected the notion that the murder charge intrudes Rowland's privacy and rights to her own body: "This is not an abortion case. This is a full-term birth that resulted in a stillborn."

Brigham Young University law professor Marguerite Driessen added to Rowland's defense, "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."

What complicates this matter further, however, is that Rowland has a long history of mental illness and had been previously diagnosed with oppositional-defiant disorder. Her attorney, Michael Sikora, said of the surgery, "It would come as no surprise that a woman with major mental illness would fear it."

Rowland even acknowledged in an interview that she twice attempted suicide and once resided for an extended period in a psychiatric hospital beginning at the age of 12. While she was living at the institution, psychiatrists diagnosed her with "oppositional defiant disorder." Rowland was born to a mentally retarded mother who immediately gave her up for adoption. As an infant, Rowland was placed in foster care and a couple adopted her before her first birthday.

Rowland faces up to life in prison if convicted.

Article Tools