Community | March 15, 2011 | 36 comments

Mother Loses Baby for Three Years Due to Refusing C-Section Pre-Consent

source: http://news.change.org/stories/mother-loses-baby-for-three-years-due-to-refusing-c-section-p...

Image
bundlebear
V.M. has been separated from her baby for three years in the name of "child welfare." All because she didn't want to pre-authorize a cesarean section that neither she nor the hospital had any reason to believe would be medically necessary, and wasn't.

RH Reality Check reports that when V.M. showed up at the hospital planning to give birth vaginally, she was asked to sign a pre-consent form permitting a c-section should it become necessary. She refused. Had there been an unexpected complication with the pregnancy, V.M. could have consented to the procedure at that time, but she didn't want to sign away her ability to make decisions about whether or not her baby would be sliced out of her belly. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The hospital, however, disagreed. After giving birth, without complications, V.M.'s newborn was taken away from her on charges of endangering child welfare. She and her husband have been fighting for three years now to get their child back.

There are a number of problems with this decision by the hospital, starting with the fact that the only welfare endangerment you could allege at the time of V.M's refusal was that of the fetus, since there was not yet any child. Secondly, many hospitals are trigger-happy when it comes to this surgery — this New Jersey hospital had a 50% c-section rate — which can be due to financial considerations or simple bias toward the procedure, although a c-section can have its own complications and pose issues for future pregnancies. Thirdly, there is controversy surrounding whether hospitals should even be allowed to ask for "pre-consent" from pregnant women with no signs of needing the procedure.

And finally, when it comes to cutting a woman's body open, her decision to wait and see, thank you very much, is fully within her choice. If she doesn't want to be slashed across her belly willy-nilly, that's her right. It is not the equivalent of child abuse.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women staff attorney Farah Diaz-Tello argued, "Once the door is open you can have field day with every aspect of a woman’s life." Fortunately, the courts have now agreed that the child abuse/neglect statutes do not apply to fetuses, and in a previous warning, refusing a c-section specifically was found to not constitute endangering a child's welfare.

V.M. and her husband are still separated from their child. Now they have to head back to the lower courts (if there's no appeal) to now only fight the hospital's claim that V.M. was acting irrational, hostile, and yelling — well, you would too if someone told you they were taking away your baby because you refused to pre-authorize an unnecessary c-section. Actually, that sounds pretty rational to me.

http://news.change.org/stories/mother-loses-baby-for-three-years-due-to-refusing...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   Health,   US Politics,   7 more
  2. tags:
    New Jersey,  child endangerment,  paperwork,  C section
  3.     
    |

36 comments // Mother Loses Baby for Three Years Due to Refusing C-Section Pre-Consent

  • bunnykatz
    • +1
      bunnykatz  

    • A bit creepy to think how much outer-interference can disrupt what should be a joyous occasion...not neglect the parents from giving love to their children. I hope they succeed in reuniting. And that a few "know-better-than-you" groups learn not to be so quick to "jump".

    • 1 year ago
  • PigFarmington
  • MizPiz
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +1
      Varex_Sythe  

    • Three years? In my opinion, this is something lawsuit worthy (assuming that the story provided is accurate in it's representation).

      That lost time are the early childhood years which will heavily influence the child that the parents will never get back.

    • 1 year ago
  • chew_chew
  • August_1
    • +2
      August_1  

    • 50% rate says it all.
      That Hospital is cashing in on performing C-sections that probably weren't
      required in many of those cases.

      Someone needs to compare the national stats with the percentages at
      that Hospital....and then REFUND the parents for every cent it cost them
      extra for what looks to be a whole lot of unnecessary C-sections.

    • 1 year ago
  • kayatz3
    • +2
      kayatz3  

    • I cannot believe this complete insanity! How can this be legal in any way? She could have signed the form if and when it became necessary. People, why are we letting this happen??

    • 1 year ago
  • treewolf39
    • +1
      treewolf39  

    • Another reason why we had my daughter at home. The amount of money we did not have to spend was an added bonus. The best part is just being home and comfortable. I can not believe the hospital has gotten away with this shit for so long. Was this conveyed to the mother before she was asked to sign? I think not!!

    • 1 year ago
  • PeteLeS33
    • +3
      PeteLeS33  

    • It's not just the hospitals, the insurence companys also encourage the practice. Performing a C Section can be two to three times the cost of a natural delevery. The purpose is to sign concent so at the smallest "excuse", they have the right to slash and rip. The mother in this case didn't do as she was told so they made their own determination. Gotta love the incorporation of religion and medicine.

    • 1 year ago
  • nanac
    • +3
      nanac  

    • What ever happened to "Land of the Free"? This lady's rights were clearly violated..The decision should have been hers/husband, or a close family member.. She should sue all parties involved in this matter......

    • 1 year ago
  • angelchua11
  • ReMarker
  • Vierotchka
  • ccscarbrough
    • +2
      ccscarbrough  

    • Removing a child without cause, as this was, is child cruelty. The child is now three years old and being raised by strangers. What a horrible thing to do to the child.

    • 1 year ago
  • Straighttalker
  • kayatz3
  • KSirys
    • +3
      KSirys  

    • I need to know where this happen!! i'm from NJ and if this hospital is c-section happy, i'm not taking my wife there... thanks for the post!

    • 1 year ago
  • August_1
  • KSirys
  • August_1
  • KSirys
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • +3
      Itsbatman_Durr  

    • omfg just when you think the absurdity and overreaching can go no further, they overextend themselves.

      anyone want to get on my bandwagon now to just let the whole shithouse go down in flames and start from scratch?

    • 1 year ago
  • xhuffpo
  • xhuffpo
  • ozoneocean
    • +1
      ozoneocean  
    • xhuffpo:

      No, there IS no more to the story and that image is entirely appropriate. Did you read your linked article? After their baby was taken away those fucking monsters expected them to go to court, get NEW psych assessments etc... Understandably they were extremely hostile to these officious cretins and on the basis of those normal, human reactions it seems they were judged as unfit and abusive...

      It begs the question: who wouldn't be? You'd need the patience of a saint to deal with such Soviet style mechanical bureaucracy.

      It seems to me that the hospital workers and the judge should face criminal proceedings.

    • 1 year ago
  • August_1
    • +1
      August_1  
    • xhuffpo:

      There was more to the article....but the Mom was given the all clear by a
      hospital shrink. (history of taking anti-depressants)

      She didn't get unruly and loud UNTIL they said they were taking her daughter away.
      The child welfare worker only heard part of the story.....was NOT there and she
      gave the original judge what amounted to biased "hearsay".

    • 1 year ago
  • xhuffpo
  • twinite
    • +4
      twinite  

    • "V.M. was acting irrational, hostile, and yelling".....well no chit, you just removed her parental rights because she choose to retain the right to decide if and when the situation arose. My daughter had to have an emergency C section, and they simply brought the forms into the op room seconds before the procedure.

      Grrrrrrr, this one REALLY pisses me off!!

    • 1 year ago
  • August_1
  • unimatrix0
    • +2
      unimatrix0  

    • I think there is probably more to this story than presented here. The woman's unwillingness to give consent for an emergency c-section was irrational - there is no guarantee she would be able to give consent if the emergency arose - e.g. she could be unconscious or otherwise incapacitated.
      But clearly the irrational refusal to consent does not merit losing custody, and it sounds like there was other irrational behavior occurring that complicatd the situation
      It is sad that you need a license to get a dog, but any crazy S.O.B. can have a kid.

    • 1 year ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +1
      Varex_Sythe  
    • unimatrix0:

      I am extremely suspicious of what the hospital considers an emergency requiring a c-section without seeing the paperwork. Hospitals do tend to do a lot of C.Y.A. (C.over Y.our A.ss) work and tests which are pointless much more often than not. Some hospitals use c-sections as a C.Y.A. procedure when minute complications, that in no way shape or form require a c-section, pop up because they would rather not take any risk in being sued. It is kind of ironic, because a procedure like a c-section can create more serious complications than the problem that prompted the c-section.

      Also, if she became unconscious, her husband could make the decision on her behalf.

      Then again, a lot of C.Y.A. tests and procedures are not something that hospitals do to waste money and resources. The concept of C.Y.A. came about in hospitals because people in the United States like to sue for anything. So doctors will do multiple tests that are not really required in order to satisfy patients that the 0.002% chance that they have cancer instead of a mole is really a 0.000% chance.

      I do agree though that it is sad that you need a license to get a dog but not a child. But if you required some kind of a license to have a child then you would in effect be limiting the reproductive rights of people. Which, ironically, the hospital is doing by taking away her child for refusing to sign a pre-consenting form for a c-section.

    • 1 year ago
  • Leen61
    • +3
      Leen61  

    • WTF?! How messed up is this? Why have a C-section if everything is perfectly fine? You can see this trend of controlling a woman's body going even farther. Also, this hospital obviously makes money on C-sections, so that's why they push the procedure. But the worst thing here is this husband and wife don't have their child. When and if they get their child back, he/she won't know them and the child will think the parents didn't want him/her. It's been 3 years already. This is just horrilbe for all involved. Unreal...well, maybe not in this country anymore.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
    • +1
      SFirman  
    • Leen61:

      This is a messed up hospital. I wouldn't do a C-section either, unless their was a problem. I hope they get there child back also, but after three years the child will be attached to who is raising the child. It is horrible.

    • 1 year ago
  • Leen61
  • danielacapistrano
  • bundlebear
more from Community:
from the community

top videos