Pregnant Woman Held at Hospital

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2010
Pregnant Woman Held at Hospital
12
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 8:40am


Fla. woman fights ruling that kept her in hospital
















By BILL KACZOR
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; 11:43 AM



TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Samantha Burton wanted to leave the hospital. Her doctor strongly disagreed, enough to go to court to keep her there.



She smoked cigarettes during the first six months of her pregnancy and was admitted on a false alarm of premature labor. Her doctor argued she was risking a miscarriage if she didn't quit smoking immediately and stay on bed rest in the hospital, and a judge agreed.


This is crazy. My mother smoked during both her pregnancies; my sister and I are here and healthy. My stepsons mother smoked AND drank  during both her pregnancies. Both boys were born normal and healthy.  I'm not condoning it, by any means. But I did not smoke nor drink during 3 pregnancies, two of which I miscarried and I also nearly lost my son. A good friend who was pregnant as the same time as I was carried her child full-term and then it died before she went into labor. No one, not even a doctor, can determine the outcome of a pregnancy.


Three days after the judge ordered her not to leave the hospital, Burton delivered a stillborn fetus by cesarean section.


And six months after the pregnancy ended, the dispute over the legal move to keep her in the hospital continues, raising questions about where a mother's right to decide her own medical treatment ends and where the priority of protecting a fetus begins.


As women we should be outraged that the law in this country is moving in such a direction.



 

"The entire experience was horrible and I am still very upset about it," Burton said through her lawyer. "I hope nobody else has to go through what I went through."


Burton, who declined to be interviewed, is appealing the judge's order. She isn't asking for money but hopes to keep her case from setting a precedent for legal control over women with problem pregnancies. She also worries it could prevent women from seeking prenatal care.


State Attorney Willie Meggs stands by his decision to seek the court order after being contacted by the hospital. "This is good people trying to do things in a right fashion to save lives," he said, "whether some people want them saved or not."


No, this not good people. This is people overstepping their bounds and abusing their power. As an adult woman I want and deserve the right to my own body. When all's said and done, that's really all any of us have is the right to protect ourselves. If we relinquish that right we're setting ourselves up for government intervention of the most intrusive kind.


Burton is in her late 20s, has two young daughters and a common-law husband and holds down a blue-collar job, said her lawyer, David Abrams. She didn't want an abortion, had obtained prenatal care and voluntarily went to the hospital after experiencing symptoms she'd been told to look out for, he said.


But she didn't like the care she received at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. She said her doctor, Jana Bures-Foresthoefel, was brusque and overbearing. Her lawyer said bed rest for difficult pregnancies is a controversial issue because it can cause some complications like blood clots. Abrams said smoking by itself doesn't cause miscarriages.


The mother said she wanted the option to seek care at another hospital or to go home so she could care for her two daughters.


"I was desperately hoping to receive the care I needed to save my baby," Burton wrote in her statement. "However, after a few days there, I did not feel I was receiving the care I needed, and instead of being allowed to leave or go to another hospital, I found myself being ordered by a judge to stay at Tallahassee Memorial and submit to all medical care from its hospital staff, whether I agreed or not."


The doctor and hospital officials declined to comment, referring calls to the state prosecutor.


American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Diana Kasdan said if the ruling stands it could lead to the state virtually taking over the lives of pregnant women, including telling them what they should or should not eat and drink and what medications they must take.



"It would be a horrible precedent," Kasdan said.


The state disputes that scenario, arguing Burton's case is rare - the only one out of 30,000 births in the Tallahassee area over the last 10 years.


Abrams said Burton's condition didn't merit such extreme action. Her symptoms were not that unusual, she wasn't in active labor and the state failed to show why bed rest at Tallahassee Memorial would have been any better than at another hospital or home, he said.


The judge ruled the best interests of the fetus overrode Burton's privacy rights, but Abrams disputes that. He notes the Florida Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, has an explicit and strong privacy right, which the state Supreme Court has said guarantees a competent person the right to "choose or refuse medical treatment."


"If you apply the best interest of the child standard, the woman becomes nothing more than a fetal incubator owned by the state of Florida," Abrams said.


And where does the "interest of the child" standard begin and end? Will women be forced to have children they don't want? Forced by law to raise them? Forced by law to pay for their college education, by them a car, go to jail along with them if they get into trouble? The possibilities are endless.


Circuit Judge John Cooper held an emergency hearing by telephone and ruled after taking testimony from Burton and Bures-Foresthoefel, but without obtaining a second medical opinion. The doctor said Burton's membranes had ruptured, that she was having early contractions and the fetus was in a breech position.


Judicial rules bar Cooper from commenting on pending cases beyond what is said in the court record.


Meggs, the prosecutor, said there was no time to get a second opinion because the situation was so dire: Burton was threatening to leave the hospital and her doctor believed that would have endangered the fetus.


"Sometimes there is not time for two doctors," Meggs said. "It's not time for a committee."


A three-judge panel of Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal heard oral argument earlier this month but has not indicated when it will rule.


There have been a few other cases nationwide that involve similar efforts by courts to intervene in pregnancies:


- In 1987, a Washington, D.C., judge ordered a woman who was dying of cancer to have a C-section, which she had refused, to save her fetus. The baby died within two hours of delivery and the mother died two days later. An appeals court later ruled the judge should not have ordered the C-section.


- In 2003, prosecutors in Salt Lake City charged an acknowledged cocaine addict who had a history of mental health problems with murder when she refused to have a C-section for two weeks before finally agreeing to the procedure. One of her twins died in the womb during the delay. Through a plea deal, the charge was later reduced to child endangerment.


- In 2004, a hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., obtained a court order to force a woman to have a C-section because her seventh baby was oversized, but the order was too late. The mother, whose first six children each weighed nearly 12 pounds at birth, went to another hospital and delivered an 11-pound, 9-ounce girl naturally.


- Also in 2004, a judge in Rochester, N.Y., ordered a homeless woman not to get pregnant again without court approval after she lost custody of several neglected children.


Dr. Michael Grodin, a physician and professor of health law, bioethics and human rights at Boston University, said doctors should never resort to court orders.


"People have the absolute right to refuse treatment ...," Grodin said. "It's unconscionable. ... It's an affront to women."


As a woman I am offended by a legal system that has the right to take over my body.  In America, it nearly takes an Act of Congress to get a loved one committed to a mental hospital; yet smoking while pregnant can, by law, get a woman held prisoner.


I wish I could read one thing about this country that demonstrated common sense and balance of thought.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-17-2009
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 8:54am

So, I guess in a nut shell, you are saying that a woman has a right to do whatever she wants while pregnant....no matter how far along...to the detriment of her unborn child. Am I correct?

This is a very difficult subject. Is a doctor supposed to sit back and do absolutely nothing....knowing that this woman's actions are going to kill her unborn child, which clearly it did?

If you read the article carefully, the doctor did not claim that cigarette smoking alone was the problem. The woman suffered from pre-term false labor and needed to be on bed rest, her smoking only made the problem worse. You do realize that nicotine is a vasoconstrictor...right? But, this woman took the advice of her attorney (who said bed rest was risky) instead of her doctor...and her baby was born dead.

Looks to me like the doctor was right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 9:13am
She didn't get an attorney until months after this incident occurs.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-17-2009
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 9:30am

((She didn't get an attorney until months after this incident occurs.))

Right, because she was caused so much "pain and suffering" that she now wants to sue. It's funny that she didn't give a darn about the "pain and suffering" that she caused her unborn baby....but she is overly concerned about herself.

Sounds to me like she is incredibly selfish. Yeah, I know....she doesn't want any money from this....right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 9:35am

<>

She isn't suing for money, so I don't know where you are getting that information. I'd certainly like to see it if you have it. Thanks.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-17-2009
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 9:40am
If she isn't suing for money....what is she suing for? Is she actually paying her attorney out of her own pocket? Doubtful. There is money involved....there always is.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 9:43am

My second baby was born premature. He was about 5-6 weeks early. From the get-go there were problems. I lived on Pepsi for about 5 months. It was the only thing I could keep down. I was told at 18 weeks to go on bed rest. I looked at the Dr. and laughed. I ask him if he was going to take care of my other child? I was also very dilated. I was in the hospital a couple of times with premature labor. My then husband was useless. There was no family around. He worked full time and I had zero help.

Son was delivered early. In perfect health. Small, but the Dr. was afraid for me to carry him any longer. Thankfully my Dr. understood I couldn't just drop everything and go to bed. I had another child to care for.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 9:49am

It's the ACLU so she isn't paying anything. They (ACLU and Burton) want the ruling overturned so it can't be used against other pregnant women.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 9:53am

Apparently Burton wanted to get a second opinion. She also had a friend who offered to help her and the children so she could be on bedrest and have her children around. The court didn't want to hear about it and took away this woman's rights. It is absolutely chilling.

I want to point out that Burton was going to all of her prenatal exams and went to her private OB when she started bleeding (as I recall). She complied with all of that. These weren't the actions of a woman who didn't give a damn about her pregnancy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 10:01am
Between Terry Shivo and this young woman, I'd run....run from Fla. They have no right over my body!
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2010
Wed, 01-27-2010 - 12:27pm

<<<Between Terry Shivo and this young woman, I'd run....run from Fla. They have no right over my body! >>>


Mine either.

Pages