It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by secretagent woooman
reply to post by TheRedneck
As a poster pointed out above, her refusal to accept a C-section potentially may have resulted in fetal brain damage or death. If she is actually as disturbed as she is being described, she may not be mentally competent to make decisons on the child's behalf. At worst the doctor may have been trying to ward off a very expensive lawsuit, this is the reason why more practicing OB/GYNs are quitting medicine that any other group. My former gynecologist, who is nationally known for her work in insurance reform, has discussed her plans to quit because of the high volume of lawsuits in that field.
As a poster pointed out above, her refusal to accept a C-section potentially may have resulted in fetal brain damage or death. If she is actually as disturbed as she is being described, she may not be mentally competent to make decisons on the child's behalf.
Where we part company is his discussion of whether V.M.'s
refusal to consent to a cesarean section (c-section) can, as a
matter of law, be considered an element of abuse and neglect.
On the record before us, we do not agree that the issue need be
My majority colleagues conclude that irrespective of
whether or not V.M. consented to the c-section, there was
sufficient credible evidence to support a finding of abuse and
neglect as to V.M. The majority therefore eschews any
discussion of the issue of c-section.
During her hospitalization in
anticipation of J.M.G.'s delivery, V.M. demonstrated combative
and erratic behavior including a refusal to consent to a
cesarean section (c-section)1. Despite the medical opinion that
the fetus demonstrated signs of distress and that the procedure
was necessary to avoid imminent danger to the fetus, the child
was born by vaginal delivery without incident.
In the hospital records, V.M. is described as "combative,"
"uncooperative," "erratic," "noncompliant," "irrational" and
"inappropriate." She ordered the attending obstetrician, Dr.
Shetal Mansuria, to leave the room and told her if she did not
do what V.M. said, she would be off the case. V.M. then
threatened to report the doctor to the police. In fact, at one
point V.M. did call the Livingston Police to report that she was
being abused and denied treatment. She told a nurse that "no
one is going to touch my baby." She continuously refused to
wear the face mask that provided her with oxygen and also
refused to remain still in order to allow for fetal heart
monitoring. She thrashed about to the extent that it was unsafe
for the anesthesiologist to administer an epidural. She would
not allow Dr. Mansuria to touch the baby or perform an
ultrasound examination. Throughout this entire period, V.M.
"was very boisterous and yelling and screaming at the top of her
On appeal, V.M. and B.G., among other arguments, assert
that the judge erred in considering in his findings that they
abused and neglected J.M.G. based on decisions that V.M. made
concerning medical treatment, specifically, her refusal to
consent to a c-section. At trial, DYFS asserted that V.M.'s
refusal to consent to a c-section was a relevant factor in
assessing abuse and neglect. On appeal, DYFS maintained that
position, however, at oral argument, DYFS suggested that the
judge need not have considered such refusal in reaching his
conclusion that V.M. abused and neglected J.M.G. DYFS did urge
that such refusal and V.M.'s later assertion that she did not
refuse the procedure were relevant to the issue of credibility.