Melissa Ann Rowland’s life is not a pretty picture. Even her supporters will tell you that.
"She’s not the vision of a soccer mom," says one, with classic understatement. Even the photo that went around the world on the March day the Utah woman was formally accused of murdering her twin son by refusing a Caesarean section gave new meaning to the phrase "mug shot."
Rowland was born to a retarded mother, adopted as a baby and admitted to a mental hospital at 12 with "oppositional defiance disorder." She has a history of mental illness, illegal drug use and accusations of child abuse and ... well, you get the picture. Not a pretty one.
Indeed, the first reports claimed that she had resisted the C-section out of vanity, telling a nurse she did not want to be cut "from breast bone to pubic bone."
The prosecutor accused her of "depraved indifference to human life."
But sometimes you have to step back from the single portrait to see the entire legal landscape.
"She’s not the vision of a soccer mom," says one, with classic understatement. Even the photo that went around the world on the March day the Utah woman was formally accused of murdering her twin son by refusing a Caesarean section gave new meaning to the phrase "mug shot."
Rowland was born to a retarded mother, adopted as a baby and admitted to a mental hospital at 12 with "oppositional defiance disorder." She has a history of mental illness, illegal drug use and accusations of child abuse and ... well, you get the picture. Not a pretty one.
Indeed, the first reports claimed that she had resisted the C-section out of vanity, telling a nurse she did not want to be cut "from breast bone to pubic bone."
The prosecutor accused her of "depraved indifference to human life."
But sometimes you have to step back from the single portrait to see the entire legal landscape.
More from this article later.
First, From the 17th of March at People's Republic of Seabrook, Northstar posted about this case, which was fresh at the time, replete with a photo of Melissa Rowland (and it's all I can do to look at her, looks which can't possibly help her case, but which hammer home a very important point in helping us to understand ourselves and our motives in all things).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I am loathe to advocate eugenics, but not everyone is qualified to have children. A case like this makes that argument without my help. The sad reality is that some people are just too stupid/irresponsible/unprepared/maladjusted to bear, much less raise, children. Don't we as a society have a responsibility to the children that are brought into this world to ensure that they have the best possible opportunity to lead a normal life?
Of course, that is a rhetorical question, and one that will never be answered, since to do so would be to acknowledge that someone or some institution has dominion over someone else's offspring. Ms. Rowland, beyond being a world-class DUMB@$$, is the poster girl for my argument. Let's face it, y'all...DUMB@$$E$ should not be allowed to breed. This is why our prisons are full. Still, who's going to make these decisions? That's what scares the hell out of me. As sad it our current system (or lack thereof) may be, it may be our best and only option.
Let's hope that Ms. Rowland can get her &$%@ together. Might I also suggest that she get her tubes tied?
Of course, that is a rhetorical question, and one that will never be answered, since to do so would be to acknowledge that someone or some institution has dominion over someone else's offspring. Ms. Rowland, beyond being a world-class DUMB@$$, is the poster girl for my argument. Let's face it, y'all...DUMB@$$E$ should not be allowed to breed. This is why our prisons are full. Still, who's going to make these decisions? That's what scares the hell out of me. As sad it our current system (or lack thereof) may be, it may be our best and only option.
Let's hope that Ms. Rowland can get her &$%@ together. Might I also suggest that she get her tubes tied?
He got three comments, the last one being mine (something I rarely do - comment on other blogs):
Some badly needed temperance for your fiery, expletive-filled diatribe. I generally dig your stuff, but you might want to rethink this one a little bit and bring some compassion to the table, just like you did in the above post about child abusers and sex-offender registries.
Posted by Ramon AC at March 17, 2004 04:30 PM
The day doctors and government are allowed to tell me what I must do to my body is the day I leave the country.
Posted by Adam at March 17, 2004 09:34 PM
well, there you have it, adam.
i hate to go into the male/female thing, but doctors and government aren't nearly so prone to telling men what they must do to their bodies as they are to telling women.
there are some serious issues regarding this woman, but as ramon implies, those kinds of issues apply to other "offenders" as well.
and therein lies the rub - who is being offended.
frankly, i have to some times go along with things i don't like. otherwise, i'd be deciding that republican conservatives shouldn't have children. i'd have surely decided that poppy and babs shouldn't have had children.
so, either i get to be the one who decides for everybody, or everybody gets to decide for her/himself. and i suspect, as much as i hate to admit it, that the latter approach is probably better.
Posted by m at March 19, 2004 10:11 AM
Posted by Ramon AC at March 17, 2004 04:30 PM
The day doctors and government are allowed to tell me what I must do to my body is the day I leave the country.
Posted by Adam at March 17, 2004 09:34 PM
well, there you have it, adam.
i hate to go into the male/female thing, but doctors and government aren't nearly so prone to telling men what they must do to their bodies as they are to telling women.
there are some serious issues regarding this woman, but as ramon implies, those kinds of issues apply to other "offenders" as well.
and therein lies the rub - who is being offended.
frankly, i have to some times go along with things i don't like. otherwise, i'd be deciding that republican conservatives shouldn't have children. i'd have surely decided that poppy and babs shouldn't have had children.
so, either i get to be the one who decides for everybody, or everybody gets to decide for her/himself. and i suspect, as much as i hate to admit it, that the latter approach is probably better.
Posted by m at March 19, 2004 10:11 AM
Finally, back to the article forwarded by La Belle:
As sides line up, this case has become another example of the rights of the woman versus the rights of a fetus.
But widen the lens and consider Amber Marlowe, for example. In January, this mother also refused to have a C-section. A Pennsylvania hospital got a court order to perform the operation. But after she and her husband fled to another hospital, she delivered the baby normally.
Or widen it to include Angela Carder. In 1987, when Carder was pregnant and critically ill with cancer, the doctors in her Washington hospital got a court order to try and save her fetus. Mother and fetus died in surgery.
The landscape is dotted with such attempts by the state to overrule the power of the mother to make health decisions for herself and her fetus.
...As Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women sees it, the real conflict is not between mother and fetus but "between the pregnant woman on behalf of herself and the fetus and the raw power of the state to tie her down and force her to go under the knife." Indeed, Rowland didn’t refuse a C-section; she delayed it. She had the C-section 11 days later in another hospital. One twin was born alive and one was stillborn.
We don’t know why, or indeed whether, the delay caused one twin to die. Rowland might or might not have made a bad decision. But there’s a difference between a bad decision and murder.
Those of us who have chronicled the ups and downs of everything from thalidomide to hormones know that medicine is not infallible.
...At the same time, no court has ever ruled that one person can be forcibly operated on for the benefit of another. The law cannot demand that you give up your kidney or bone marrow or even blood to save another life. Even your toddler’s. Nor does it charge you with murder if you refuse.
So does only a pregnant woman lose the right to refuse treatment?
Is she the only one who loses the guarantee to make medical decisions for herself and her fetus?
The abortion debate has discolored every argument.
But widen the lens and consider Amber Marlowe, for example. In January, this mother also refused to have a C-section. A Pennsylvania hospital got a court order to perform the operation. But after she and her husband fled to another hospital, she delivered the baby normally.
Or widen it to include Angela Carder. In 1987, when Carder was pregnant and critically ill with cancer, the doctors in her Washington hospital got a court order to try and save her fetus. Mother and fetus died in surgery.
The landscape is dotted with such attempts by the state to overrule the power of the mother to make health decisions for herself and her fetus.
...As Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women sees it, the real conflict is not between mother and fetus but "between the pregnant woman on behalf of herself and the fetus and the raw power of the state to tie her down and force her to go under the knife." Indeed, Rowland didn’t refuse a C-section; she delayed it. She had the C-section 11 days later in another hospital. One twin was born alive and one was stillborn.
We don’t know why, or indeed whether, the delay caused one twin to die. Rowland might or might not have made a bad decision. But there’s a difference between a bad decision and murder.
Those of us who have chronicled the ups and downs of everything from thalidomide to hormones know that medicine is not infallible.
...At the same time, no court has ever ruled that one person can be forcibly operated on for the benefit of another. The law cannot demand that you give up your kidney or bone marrow or even blood to save another life. Even your toddler’s. Nor does it charge you with murder if you refuse.
So does only a pregnant woman lose the right to refuse treatment?
Is she the only one who loses the guarantee to make medical decisions for herself and her fetus?
The abortion debate has discolored every argument.
Damned if it hasn't.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!