we have brains

doctor v. woman?

April 4, 2004 01:29 PM posted by april : track it (0)

What do you think about the Melissa Rowland murder case?

For those of you who aren't familiar, Melissa Rowland is the woman who is being prosecuted for murder because she initially opted not to have a C-section, and one of her twins died in childbirth (or was stillborn, I'm not clear on this part of the story). Much of the media coverage of this case painted her as opting out of major surgery for reasons of vanity only. It turns out that she's mentally ill, which makes her seem a lot more sympathetic.

Need more information? One of the folk I read on LiveJournal posted a link to this excellent article on the Rowland case, which goes into more detail on the practice of C-sections in the US (note, though, that as much an editorial as a factual article).

So, the question(s): What does this case say about modern medicine and women? Does it elevate a doctor's advice over a person's own choice, or an unborn child's rights over a woman's? Should we be worried? And what (if any) actions should this drive from feminists?

« feminist swag | whb homepage | grrrly news 04/07 »

your comments : post a new comment

i think it's a travesty.

first off, ms. rowland had had two prior c-sections, so i find it hard to believe she refused this one out of vanity.

secondly, the vertical cut technique IS used in some emergency c-sections. if ms. rowland was already upset--especially with her history of mental illness--and they were talking emergency section, i wonder what they said to her to make her think they'd cut her that way. because surely she knew that's not the usual cut.

thirdly, the state of utah violated her right to refuse a surgical procedure. regardless of possible birth outcomes, a pregnant woman still has the right to make informed consent, and to punish ms. rowland by charging her with murder runs completely counter to what the doctor-patient relationship ought to be. this isn't the 1800s when women were given hysterectomies against their will. we're supposed to be more enlightened now. so. wtf??

feminists should be rallying around ms. rowland, that's what feminists should be doing. the pregnant, the mentally ill and the poor among women have historically been hurt the most by patriarchy. for feminist organizations to say nothing now is just leaving future melissa rowlands vulnerable to abuse by the system. you'd think we'd have learned by now from the tragic case of angela carder. but, maybe not. *shrug*

Posted by: dana on April 2, 2004 05:27 PM |

my response posted here.
my thoughts generally go along the same lines as Dana's.
i added some comments about the cult of Medical Science.
also, i found a remarkably good article on cnn of all places that provides a strong, eloquent legal argument supporting Melissa Rowland (written by a woman). You can read it here.

Posted by: megan on April 3, 2004 04:35 PM |

I get a little paranoid in my short response -- it won't take long to read.

Posted by: Brigitte on April 5, 2004 10:29 AM |