Melissa Rowland and the rights of pregnant women

On March 11, 2004, the State of Utah charged Melissa Rowland with the murder of her stillborn fetus, claiming that the death resulted from her rejection of the advice of her physicians to have a cesarean delivery. Although Ms. Rowland avoided the homicide charge by pleading guilty to lesser child en...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) 2004-12, Vol.104 (6), p.1234-1236
Hauptverfasser: Minkoff, Howard, Paltrow, Lynn M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1236
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1234
container_title Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)
container_volume 104
creator Minkoff, Howard
Paltrow, Lynn M
description On March 11, 2004, the State of Utah charged Melissa Rowland with the murder of her stillborn fetus, claiming that the death resulted from her rejection of the advice of her physicians to have a cesarean delivery. Although Ms. Rowland avoided the homicide charge by pleading guilty to lesser child endangerment charges, the approach taken by the State raises important and troubling issues regarding the autonomy rights of pregnant women, as well as their right to speak on behalf their unborn children. We use this case to review relevant ethical principals and legal precedents. We conclude that if Ms. Rowland is to be judged legally culpable for the death of her fetus, then the courts must first create a new and significant exception to the doctrine of informed consent and the common law and constitutional principles upon which it is based. Such a precedent could introduce a substantial disparity between the rights of pregnant women and those of all other persons. We would argue that a better means of assuring the health interests of the pregnant woman and the fetus in similar circumstances is through advocacy by obstetricians for pregnant women's fully realized rights, including the right to informed consent.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/01.AOG.0000146289.65429.48
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67130599</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67130599</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f4935da6f06853cdd65ad1450ac33c53854c258f10d3f742bc1ec9d2011765733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkMtKA0EQRXuhmBj9BRlcuJux-t3tLgSNQiQgum46_UhG5hGnJwT_3okJpKCozblVxUHoHkOBQctHwMV0OS9gKMwEUboQnBFdMHWBxgBE51IxNkLXKX0fGKHpFRphziVhiowRvIeqTMlmH-2-so3PDt1vQtaV602fsjZm2y6sG9v02b6tQ3ODLqOtUrg9zQn6enn-nL3mi-X8bTZd5I5i2eeRacq9FRGE4tR5L7j1mHGwjlLHqeLMEa4iBk-jZGTlcHDaE8BYCi4pnaCH495t1_7sQupNXSYXquHJ0O6SERJT4FoP4NMRdF2bUhei2XZlbbtfg8EcHBnAZnBkzo7MvyPD1BC-O13Zrergz9GTIPoHsCxjFg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67130599</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Melissa Rowland and the rights of pregnant women</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Minkoff, Howard ; Paltrow, Lynn M</creator><creatorcontrib>Minkoff, Howard ; Paltrow, Lynn M</creatorcontrib><description>On March 11, 2004, the State of Utah charged Melissa Rowland with the murder of her stillborn fetus, claiming that the death resulted from her rejection of the advice of her physicians to have a cesarean delivery. Although Ms. Rowland avoided the homicide charge by pleading guilty to lesser child endangerment charges, the approach taken by the State raises important and troubling issues regarding the autonomy rights of pregnant women, as well as their right to speak on behalf their unborn children. We use this case to review relevant ethical principals and legal precedents. We conclude that if Ms. Rowland is to be judged legally culpable for the death of her fetus, then the courts must first create a new and significant exception to the doctrine of informed consent and the common law and constitutional principles upon which it is based. Such a precedent could introduce a substantial disparity between the rights of pregnant women and those of all other persons. We would argue that a better means of assuring the health interests of the pregnant woman and the fetus in similar circumstances is through advocacy by obstetricians for pregnant women's fully realized rights, including the right to informed consent.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-7844</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000146289.65429.48</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15572482</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adult ; Cesarean Section - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Ethics, Clinical ; Female ; Fetal Death ; History, 21st Century ; Homicide - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Humans ; Physician-Patient Relations ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Outcome ; Rowland ; Treatment Refusal - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Utah</subject><ispartof>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 2004-12, Vol.104 (6), p.1234-1236</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f4935da6f06853cdd65ad1450ac33c53854c258f10d3f742bc1ec9d2011765733</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f4935da6f06853cdd65ad1450ac33c53854c258f10d3f742bc1ec9d2011765733</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15572482$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Minkoff, Howard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paltrow, Lynn M</creatorcontrib><title>Melissa Rowland and the rights of pregnant women</title><title>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</title><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>On March 11, 2004, the State of Utah charged Melissa Rowland with the murder of her stillborn fetus, claiming that the death resulted from her rejection of the advice of her physicians to have a cesarean delivery. Although Ms. Rowland avoided the homicide charge by pleading guilty to lesser child endangerment charges, the approach taken by the State raises important and troubling issues regarding the autonomy rights of pregnant women, as well as their right to speak on behalf their unborn children. We use this case to review relevant ethical principals and legal precedents. We conclude that if Ms. Rowland is to be judged legally culpable for the death of her fetus, then the courts must first create a new and significant exception to the doctrine of informed consent and the common law and constitutional principles upon which it is based. Such a precedent could introduce a substantial disparity between the rights of pregnant women and those of all other persons. We would argue that a better means of assuring the health interests of the pregnant woman and the fetus in similar circumstances is through advocacy by obstetricians for pregnant women's fully realized rights, including the right to informed consent.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Cesarean Section - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Ethics, Clinical</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fetal Death</subject><subject>History, 21st Century</subject><subject>Homicide - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Physician-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Outcome</subject><subject>Rowland</subject><subject>Treatment Refusal - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Utah</subject><issn>0029-7844</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkMtKA0EQRXuhmBj9BRlcuJux-t3tLgSNQiQgum46_UhG5hGnJwT_3okJpKCozblVxUHoHkOBQctHwMV0OS9gKMwEUboQnBFdMHWBxgBE51IxNkLXKX0fGKHpFRphziVhiowRvIeqTMlmH-2-so3PDt1vQtaV602fsjZm2y6sG9v02b6tQ3ODLqOtUrg9zQn6enn-nL3mi-X8bTZd5I5i2eeRacq9FRGE4tR5L7j1mHGwjlLHqeLMEa4iBk-jZGTlcHDaE8BYCi4pnaCH495t1_7sQupNXSYXquHJ0O6SERJT4FoP4NMRdF2bUhei2XZlbbtfg8EcHBnAZnBkzo7MvyPD1BC-O13Zrergz9GTIPoHsCxjFg</recordid><startdate>200412</startdate><enddate>200412</enddate><creator>Minkoff, Howard</creator><creator>Paltrow, Lynn M</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200412</creationdate><title>Melissa Rowland and the rights of pregnant women</title><author>Minkoff, Howard ; Paltrow, Lynn M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-f4935da6f06853cdd65ad1450ac33c53854c258f10d3f742bc1ec9d2011765733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Cesarean Section - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Ethics, Clinical</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fetal Death</topic><topic>History, 21st Century</topic><topic>Homicide - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Physician-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Outcome</topic><topic>Rowland</topic><topic>Treatment Refusal - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Utah</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Minkoff, Howard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paltrow, Lynn M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Minkoff, Howard</au><au>Paltrow, Lynn M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Melissa Rowland and the rights of pregnant women</atitle><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2004-12</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>104</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1234</spage><epage>1236</epage><pages>1234-1236</pages><issn>0029-7844</issn><abstract>On March 11, 2004, the State of Utah charged Melissa Rowland with the murder of her stillborn fetus, claiming that the death resulted from her rejection of the advice of her physicians to have a cesarean delivery. Although Ms. Rowland avoided the homicide charge by pleading guilty to lesser child endangerment charges, the approach taken by the State raises important and troubling issues regarding the autonomy rights of pregnant women, as well as their right to speak on behalf their unborn children. We use this case to review relevant ethical principals and legal precedents. We conclude that if Ms. Rowland is to be judged legally culpable for the death of her fetus, then the courts must first create a new and significant exception to the doctrine of informed consent and the common law and constitutional principles upon which it is based. Such a precedent could introduce a substantial disparity between the rights of pregnant women and those of all other persons. We would argue that a better means of assuring the health interests of the pregnant woman and the fetus in similar circumstances is through advocacy by obstetricians for pregnant women's fully realized rights, including the right to informed consent.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>15572482</pmid><doi>10.1097/01.AOG.0000146289.65429.48</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0029-7844
ispartof Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 2004-12, Vol.104 (6), p.1234-1236
issn 0029-7844
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67130599
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Cesarean Section - legislation & jurisprudence
Ethics, Clinical
Female
Fetal Death
History, 21st Century
Homicide - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Physician-Patient Relations
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
Rowland
Treatment Refusal - legislation & jurisprudence
Utah
title Melissa Rowland and the rights of pregnant women
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T22%3A26%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Melissa%20Rowland%20and%20the%20rights%20of%20pregnant%20women&rft.jtitle=Obstetrics%20and%20gynecology%20(New%20York.%201953)&rft.au=Minkoff,%20Howard&rft.date=2004-12&rft.volume=104&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1234&rft.epage=1236&rft.pages=1234-1236&rft.issn=0029-7844&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/01.AOG.0000146289.65429.48&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67130599%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67130599&rft_id=info:pmid/15572482&rfr_iscdi=true