Now here’s a conundrum: at what stage of life does a fetus acquire the “right” to be free from having its health controlled by the religious beliefs of its parents? According to yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, a 28-year-old woman in Australia was discovered to have leukemia when she was seven months pregnant. She was also a Jehovah’s Witness, which means that it was against her religion to get blood transfusions. Because there were complications of the pregnancy (probably related to the leukemia), the doctors needed to do a Caesarian section, but couldn’t because the mother would bleed to death since she wouldn’t accept blood.
The baby died, and the mother died shortly thereafter from a stroke—a common cause of death in untreated leukemia, as with the Canadian First Nations girl Makayla Sault. In all likelihood the doctors could have saved the baby, but it would have involved killing the mother, although the mother would have died anyway from the disease.
Seven months pregnant is beyond the time when the fetus is considered viable, and beyond the time abortion is legal in the U.S.
The question is this: did the doctors do the ethical thing by letting both die? Their action was legal, as they abided by the mother’s wishes, and couldn’t at any rate kill her, though a bill has been drawn up in Australia that would criminalize harming a fetus in utero). But should the doctors have forcibly transfused her, saved the baby via Caesarian, and then let the mother have her wish and die from leukemia? What we have here is the equivalent of a parent choosing death, but in the process choosing to abort a 7-months-old fetus. In the U.S., I suspect, doctors would have done the same thing, for to save the baby they’d have to kill the mother.
My own view is that nothing could be done, for I am one of those extremists who isn’t opposed to late-term abortions, and don’t feel that the fetus had any “right” to live at the mother’s expense. Nor do I think that in such a case the mother should have been forced to have a transfusion, which violates her religion—even though I think that those religious views are particularly stupid and harmful. She was, according to law, old enough to have “decided” what she did, though, as a determinist, I recognize that she, probably brainwashed as a child, had no more choice in the matter as did her fetus.
Still, the baby was not unwanted, and both it and the mother could have lived with a transfusion. Perhaps the mother would have eventually died of leukemia, for I don’t think one can survive that without transfusions, but I’m not sure. What bothers me immensely is that both deaths were completely needless, based as they were on the two Bible verses that Jehovah’s Witnesses use to justify refusing whole-blood transfusions. (Curiously, they will accept some components of blood, like serum.) It’s yet another example of two lives martyred for an ancient work of fiction.
As for the legal aspects, the paper quotes a bioethicist:
Sascha Callaghan, an expert in ethics and law at the University of Sydney, said the law as it stands allowed the mother to make decisions that would affect the fetus, even if it probably would have been able to survive outside her body.
“This isn’t to say it isn’t a tragic event … but we live in a society where, within reason, we let citizens be the authors of their own lives,” she said. “If you are going to grant women full rights as citizens, are you going to dilute those rights for women who are carrying fetuses?”
Dr Callaghan said Jehovah’s Witnesses were often unfairly criticised for their religious stance against blood transfusion despite it being a thoughtfully and strongly held belief.
“This woman had a long-held commitment to the Jehovah’s Witness faith and that’s how she chose to die. We are all entitled to die with dignity,” she said. “When your fetus is in utero, it is inextricably tied to your life.”
This gives unwarranted respect to a horrible, execrable belief. It is not “unfair” to criticize a belief based on Bronze Age mythology, even if it is “thoughtfully and strongly held.” First of all, it’s hardly “thoughtful”, as it’s based on two Bible verses about eating blood, which certainly can have other interpretations. Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t allowed to deliberate on the issue, and they get it from indoctrination. Further, there are many “strongly held beliefs” that deserve no respect by virtue of the strength of adherence: denial of rights for gays is such a view. So while I agree with Callaghan’s view that what doctors did in this case was proper, I don’t afford an iota of respect to the religious views of a woman who decided to die and take her unborn child with her. Yes, by all means apprise her of the risk, and treat her with the dignity afforded all humans who choose to die, but do not insult rationality by saying that criticism of her choice is “unfair.” On the contrary, criticism of such choices is almost mandatory, for they are both irrational and murderous.
h/t: Pyers
The truly wrong and ironic piece in this business is the “die with dignity” they talk about. She gets that right because of the religious belief but millions of us do not. That gives religion an advantage none of us get and that makes no sense, legal or otherwise.
My first thought was, what dignity is there in dying and taking your viable fetus with you merely because you have an irrational belief that transfusions are against your god’s rules?
Same thoughts here as well. Probably with most atheist at least. But a Dr. Callaghan, I believe it was, said those words. So she gets to make the choice for herself and the fetus because of religion but we get no such choice for our self in most states anyway.
Oh, indeed. Did not mean my comment as a counter to your original in any way. Merely a comment about Sascha Callaghan’s (the ethics expert) characterization of “dignity” in this context.
I’d add that I think it is irresponsible for ethics experts to characterize death in such circumstances as dignified. In exactly the same way as it is irresponsible for accommodationists to insist that religious beliefs should be respected. But on this website that is just stating the obvious.
In the United States, women are arrested for refusing c-section. And in one case, a woman suffering from cancer even died because a c-section was forced on her. Oh, the baby died shortly after birth. Angela Carder.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_A.C.
Yes, but refusing medical treatment on religious grounds gets special privilege in the U.S. Given that the mother’s wishes not to be transfused had to be respected, I think that she would have been allowed to die here, and the fetus with her, without any legal interference. But that’s just a guess.
You are probably right.
It is “moral” if done for religious reasons.
Moral to that specific religious. But I’m not so sure not so sure about what would happen here. Most likely depends on the state you are in. They go rushing into court when these kind of things happen and it is hard to say. I recall one example where they were keeping a brain dead woman alive against the parents wishes while they waited for the baby to further develop.
Yes, but refusing medical treatment on religious grounds gets special privilege in the U.S.
Are you quite sure about that? I practice medicine in Canada, but I don’t believe our situation is much different from the US, and here a mentally competent can make a decision regarding her own treatment for whatever reason, no matter how stupid that decision may be. It just so happens that a disproportionate number of the really stupid decisions seem to be motivated by religious belief.
(And when a parent is making a decision on behalf of a child, the situation is different.)
Things have changed by now. Dr. Amy Tuteur, a US obstetrician, often writes in her blog about pregnant women who kill or disable their babies (and, in some cases, themselves) by refusing C-section for no reason other than being brainwashed with “natural birth” woo. Here is one of these cases:
http://www.skepticalob.com/2012/02/medical-student-learns-about-homebirth.html
She even invented an extreme form of informed consent she called her “dead baby card”:
“Dr. Tuteur has explained to me that she believes my baby is in imminent danger of dying and needs to be delivered by C-section immediately. I understand that my baby might die without an immediate C-section, but I refuse and I take full responsibility for my baby’s death.”
http://www.skepticalob.com/2012/02/dr-amys-dead-baby-card.html
35 year old woman undergoes *forced* c-section
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/23/pregnant-women-forced-c-section
Florida hospital demands woman undergo forced c-section, doctor threatens her with jail:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/07/25/florida-hospital-demands-woman-undergo-forced-c-section/
Woman forced into court ordered hospital confinement and c-section:
http://radicaldoula.com/2010/01/13/woman-forced-into-court-ordered-hospital-confinement-and-c-section/
——————–
It comes down to bodily integrity. No government, no person, has the right to cut you open, even if it is to save a life. A drop of your blood cannot even be taken to save a life. That = assault.
By that logic, the rape victim from Ireland who was denied an abortion should have been tied down and forced fed for 9 months until the precious baby was born.
And I would like to add, in the USA at least, c-sections are a huge source of revenue for hospitals, which is probably a reason why some doctors want to force them.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/08/30/216479305/money-may-be-motivating-doctors-to-do-more-c-sections
It’s not always a case of ‘natural birth nuts’ seeking to ‘murder their babies’ out of ignorance and superstition.
Yes, there are still some cases of forced c-sections, but there seem to be orders of magnitude more cases of the opposite situation, i.e. section needed but not performed.
I am not saying that forced c-sections should be performed in any circumstances – they shouldn’t. The mother’s will is superior.
Dr. Tuteur denies that there is economic motivation for US hospitals and doctors to perform sections, though the natural birth industry keeps repeating this. I don’t know the truth, I tend to trust her more than the natural birth supporters.
Rather, doctors and hospitals wish more births to be performed by section to avoid lawsuits, given the high potential of vaginal birth to end in disaster.
I agree that “it’s not always a case of ‘natural birth nuts’ seeking to ‘murder their babies’ out of ignorance and superstition”, but in the overwhelming majority of cases it’s just this, women with intrinsically normal intelligence reduced to nuts by tuning to propaganda and turning a deaf ear on facts; and when they kill their babies by their nutty decisions, they invariably find someone else to blame.
Of course, accepting c-sections requires a reform of our entire culture. In its deep layers, there is the idea that God punished women to give birth in pain because of their sins; hence, it is wrong to avoid the pain (and c-section, unlike vaginal birth, is always performed with anaesthesia). Why is the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451 disgusted by a female character’s decision to give birth by c-section? Why does he, a male, think that a good woman should embrace pain?
The “faith with impunity” amendment and its calamitous trail of collateral damage.
Criticism of her choice is a necessary part of the determinist stream preventing other such choices. This emphasis on how faith beliefs are “thoughtful” is just more privileging of any irrationality which trips over into the “spiritual” category.
Yes indeed, it must be hard to continue to stick by your beliefs when they’re so demonstrably wrong and damaging. No credit goes to the believer though.
I am inclined to agree with you. In addition to the rights argument you make, there is also a practical argument to be made: if you start forcing such treatments, JWs who would otherwise go to the hospital for a birth will now avoid them, statistically increasing the death toll. Its very parallel to one of the pro-choice arguments; that women are going to have them and criminalizing doesn’t prevent it so much as it just increases the riskiness of the procedure.
That argument structure doesn’t work well for every case or example, but I think in this case it probably does apply: if JWs believe that going to a hospital will result in a forced transfusion, many of them will stop going.
ts very parallel to one of the pro-choice arguments; that women are going to have them and criminalizing doesn’t prevent it so much as it just increases the riskiness of the procedure.
Exactly.
Though, just to show you how depraved and indifferent to female suffering most anti-choicers are, you will hear them argue that women dying from botched abortions is nothing to be concerned about, since we ‘don’t make murder legal just because some murderers might injure themselves whilst committing the act.’
They really think very very little of women.
It’s about moral purity, not actually saving the largest # of lives, which is why they also oppose contraception and sex education. It feels good to tell people to behave in a morally sanctioned way, actual real world implications be damned. Man, the thought process is so much like that of the SJW…
Stories like this one make me scream in frustration. Just because some bronze age goathearders codified their campfire stories, people die today.
I agree. Two totally needless deaths.
I agree, but, and it seems unclear from the article, did anybody give her the choice of undergoing the caesarian without a transfusion to save the baby but in the knowledge of almost certain death for her. I know parents that would accept that choice.
You wrote:”Seven months pregnant is beyond the time when the fetus is considered viable, and beyond the time abortion is legal in the U.S.” Actually, this would be a third-trimester abortion and that is legal when the woman’s life is in danger. I don’t know enough about this case (or medicine, for that matter) to say whether or not the pregnancy endangered the woman’s life. In the US only a handful of dedicated clinics exist that perform late-term abortions. One of these clinics is in Topeka, KS, and was founded and run by the murdered Dr George Tiller. Misogynists (anti-abortion radicals) assassinated Tiller *in his church* a couple of years ago. All doctors who perform abortions are at risk from misogynist violence, but those few doctors who perform late-term abortions are in extreme danger. KD
A day wifowt kittehs iz a day wifowt sunshine. — Dr Jerry Coyne, translated into LOLCat by Ginger K. Eben teh smallest kitteh iz a masterpeece. — Leonardo da Vinci, translated into LOLCat by Ginger K.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 14:30:23 +0000 To: gvicious@hotmail.com
“Seven months pregnant is beyond the time when the fetus is considered viable, and beyond the time abortion is legal in the U.S.”
Actually, this would be a third-trimester abortion and that is legal when the woman’s life is in danger. I don’t know enough about this case (or medicine, for that matter) to say whether or not the pregnancy endangered the woman’s life. In the US only a handful of dedicated clinics exist that perform late-term abortions. One of these clinics is in Topeka, KS, and was founded and run by the murdered Dr George Tiller. Misogynists (anti-abortion radicals) assassinated Tiller *in his church* a couple of years ago.
All doctors who perform abortions are at risk from misogynist violence, but those few doctors who perform late-term abortions are in extreme danger.
This is also about bodily integrity. A doctor can’t operate a patient who has explicitly stated that he or she doesn’t want to be cut open. Same reasoning applies to pills and blood transfusions. Bodily integrity should always be respected, even if it leads to the death of that person and her baby.
That’s what I came here to type.
It really doesn’t matter how fucked-up her reasons for not wanting the medical procedure are; if she says, “no,” then that should be it.
Pregnancy or no.
Now, do I think her reasons are totally fucked up? Yes. Would I tell her as much if I knew her and urge her to grow up and come to her senses? Absolutely.
But, would I support strapping her down and operating against her will, or threatening her with prison or whatever if she continued to refuse?
Fuck no!
About the only alternative I can think of is treatment for an acute onset of mental illness where the illness itself is most responsible for the refusal for treatment and where the patient can reasonably be assumed to have wanted to be treated prior to the onset. That’s clearly not the case here, of course.
b&
OK, I agree Ben.
What is “thoughtful” about blindly following a religious mandate?
You have the right to your religious beliefs, but you are not allowed to wander the streets of a residential area with a megaphone talking about God – because it disturbs the peace.
But we should let this mother kill a viable child?
Native Americans are not allowed to partake of peyote during religious ceremonies because it violates drug laws.
But we should let this mother kill a viable child?
Mormons are not allowed to practice bigamy – But we should let this mother kill a viable child?
Some fundamentalists argue that gay people should be stoned to death. If they did that, would we not prosecute them for murder? What is different about this case? That was a viable child that died. Even Rowe v. Wade would not have allowed that woman to have an abortion – because that law is a compromise which takes both the mother’s and the unborn child’s rights into consideration.
That woman, I would argue, should have been forced to have a transfusion and cancer chemotherapy, not for her sake, but for the sake of the unborn child. Or, the unborn child should have been delivered by C-section and the mother could have disallowed transfusion.
But, in the case described above, NOBODY represented the interests of a viable child, which, really, in an act in complete disregard for the highest law in the land concerning the rights of unborn children.
But we should let this mother kill a viable child?
It’s only viable in theory.
There will be no proof of viability until it’s born, and can survive on it’s own. The hole in the heart could very well fail to close at birth, and it could die. It could be a stillbirth for an unknown reason.
Again, we do not forcibly restrain and cut people open for others. Bodily autonomy *does* come before life.
What about after birth when the fetus actually does become a child?
Would you strap a woman down and forcibly operate on her against her explicit wishes if that was the only way to save the life of her toddler? How about her teenager? Or somebody else’s teenager, or just some random schmuck somewhere?
If not, why does it suddenly become okay to do so before birth?
You might admire those who choose to make some sort of sacrifice for the sake of others, but there’s no moral way to force people to be altruistic like that.
b&
Roe v Wade is what is relevant to me, in this case, not some hypothetical imperfect analogy involving already born children.
But to reply to your unasked question – Yes, I really am not comfortable advocating a legal invasion of the mother. And I would hate to think that such a ruling might lead to all sorts of totalitarian horrors. But extraordinary circumstances make for exceptions to the law.
Roe v Wade, it seems to me (and I am NOT a lawyer) makes it clear that the State has a compelling interest, an obligation perhaps, to protect the life interests of the unborn either more or less during the progression of a pregnancy. And in this case – nobody represented the interests of the unborn child.
I would argue that a valid interpretation of this case might be that this child was allowed to be murdered for religious reasons. And that is unacceptable to me.
I am unaware of anything in any law, including Roe v Wade, that permits, let alone requires, the imposition of medical procedures against the “patient’s” will. The closest we get are with respect to infectious diseases, and then only regarding mandatory vaccination when no medical contraindications exist and quarantine.
What you propose is every bit as horrific as we decry happened in the worst tragedies of history.
b&
That is presuming incorrectly that foetuses are children.
I think a woman has an absolute right to decide what to do about her foetus, up until the time it’s born.
And I absolutely do not agree that a woman’s interests should be made subservient to a non-human thing inside her. If that were a risk then any woman would be well advised to have an abortion at the earliest possible moment, in pre-emptive self-defence.
Just to be clear, then, you realize you are rejecting Roe v Wade, and advocating – in this particular case – a possible disregard for the law?
Oh…. and that was a viable unborn child. It would have lived on it’s own save for being trapped in a membrane or two.
To argue that it was “non-human” seems to me to cede the argument.
Please stop using the oxymoron “unborn child.” There is no such thing. This ridiculous phrase was invented by misogynists.
Thankyou ginger k, my point too.
You are still wrong. Viable in theory, not actuality. You won’t know that its viable until it can actually survive ex utero, as an independent organism. And at 7 months, it is still an extreme neonate, one that very well might not live ex utero, which is why it needs 2 more months of gestation.
We don’t cut peoople up for actual born children. Cutting someone up for a mere potentiality is grotesque. And yes, it would set a horrible precedent.
RvW does NOT give rights to fetuses. Fetuses have no rights. Only people have rights, and personhood is assigned at birth.
RvW gave states the right to regulate abortion past 24-28 weeks. That’s all. A states rights issue, NOT a fetal rights issue. A common misconception.
Thank you, Muffy!
“But should the doctors have forcibly transfused her, saved the baby via Caesarian, and then let the mother have her wish and die from leukemia?”
Yes.
On second thought, I agree with Ben.
I had an odd thought while reading this. Among Catholics suicide is a hell worthy sin, but is it the same for Jehovah’s Witnesses? If so then what is worse for JW: blood transfusion and live or refuse transfusion and essentially commit suicide. They seem to be screwed theologically either way.
But in their minds there’s no suicide; they’re submitting themselves to God’s will.
Exactly. And if the rest of us choose to “die with dignity” we are subverting God’s will.
In fact, just last week, a Xtian LiveActionNews freak was angrily lamenting the fact that soooo many people today seek to “take control” from God, and choose abortion and/or assisted suicide.
This *really* chapped her britches.
I wonder if she refuses antibiotics, or to wear a seatbelt, or drinks unpasteurized milk?
So many things God’s been lax about.
She has breast cancer and has had no problem availing herself of extensive treatment.
She also accuses people who disagree with her on abortion of “bullying a cancer patient”
RWNJs are just the mirror image of SJWs. They are victims of oppression who are just “punching up”
I don’t necessarily have a problem with 3rd trimester abortions. It’s not like we have a shortage of humans, so if she wants to kill herself that’s her call.
No matter how stupid her reasons, a 28 year old woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. A foetus does not have more rights than she does.
If she had a fourteen year old child who needed a heart transplant, would you force the mother to provide her heart? No. It would kill her. But some are suggesting the same thing is okay for a foetus.
That’s how we spell it English. Foetus.
In a strange way this is like the old philosophical “trolley problem” where the lever is a simple blood transfusion
and religion “gums up the tracks”.
I wonder how the governor of indiana or that new prresidential candidate TED “BUNDY” CRUZ
would rationalize this case, what would they say if asked about the “morality” of what happened in Australia, (they would probably have to ask sarah palin where Australia is)
(relieving my Frustration about A PREVENTABLE DEATH by SARCASM)
;(
I suspect that Australia is like the US in mandating that people wear seat belts when driving, and if pulled over can be cited and fined, and if they refuse to pay the fine things can escalate to jail time / property seizure. And all that is because it has been demonstrated repeatedly that seat belts reduce injury.
I also suspect that one could find some Biblical passage that could be construed as an injunction against wearing seat belts (since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that one can find things to construe into anything else one might like in there).
Here’s a crazy question – What would one do if this was a very pregnant cat that was going to die but one could save the kittens?
I do wonder how much the foetus suffered while everyone had to dilly dally over this dilemma. Is there any such thing as euthanasia for a doomed 7-month foetus? Maybe there should be.
Fetuses are sedated and anaesthetized in utero. It would not have suffered.
Thanks for that.
I wonder if the elders at her kingdom hall are preparing to discipline her after all of this. There was no mention of a husband.
If she did not have one, they may blame the disease on her sin of having a pregnancy outside of wedlock. Sure, they will praise her for not taking the life saving transfusion even at the cost of her presumably wanted unborn child being put at risk, and they will both be treated as martyrs for Jehovah. Unless she shamed them all by having sex without the marital bond. We don’t know when she became a witness, and if she became one before or after the pregnancy. Too many factors that could be in play here. The end result of this is that two lives could have been saved if religion was not involved.
When I say discipline, I mean make an open declaration at the end of the meeting quoting a bible verse that will let everyone know what crime she would be guilty of.