I have mixed feelings on this. If this was merely a "suggestion," then she has a right to choose her own delivery method - a good OB/GYN will be able to deliver even under difficult circumstances. If this was a "ewww... a scar!" excuse, then she's awful. I really don't have an opinion whether or not this is LEGALLY illegal, but it certainly is horrible in my mind. At hospitals in the bronx, i've seen the effect of crack babies. It's revolting to me to have crack or heroin when pregnant. I dunno. I really empathise with addictions, and i don't really have a feeling on "arresting" these women. But on a moral ground, it's sickening to me when I see babies (in books) without a limb two, or (in real life) babies born at 2 pounds or so and dying needlessly the next few days.

And let me try to answer some of the more ridiculous responses (i won't say names) before the more sane/friendly-to-discuss people (amanda, jessica, others) come along. No, I don't think any woman who smokes a cigarette or drinks wine is also scum. Don't be ridiculous - a cigarette isn't heroin. And yes, I'm incredibly pro-choice, but that doesn't mean a woman can MORALLY (not *legally*) do extreme diets or other harm to her baby. It her body, yes - but there's responsibility when you carry a child in utero. And no, this opinion doesn't make me a bad person. If you think a crack mother does nothing wrong doesn't make me think you're a bad person. It's simply a different opinion. And finally, yes, in a theoretical case (perhaps possible?) where a man took some chemical knowing it'd mess up his sperm then had sex which resulted in a birth-defect baby, i say the asshole is also scum.

Tough situation (and no, i'm not commenting on the Aussie or Utah woman - just in general).

Actually, the australian woman didn't want a home birth. She understood the risks of a VBAC, and wanted one in a hospital under proper supervision. The hospital were so unhelpful and dismissing of her decision that in a written communication with them, she made an angry crack about ditching them for a home birth. They took that opportunity to dob her in, most likely because she was an annoyance to them. As it stands, the jury's still out on VBAC's. It used to be mandatory that once a woman had had a cesarean, she must have them during subsequent births due to the risk of uterine rupture along the scar, but questions are now being raised about the wisdom of that decision, given that the risk of rupture is seen in some circles as lower than the risks attached to the caesarean procedure itself. Women attempting to assess the risks for themselves and make an informed choice are usually ignored, as in this case.

I don't think you're going to find very many people who think it's just peachy to do heroin while you're pregnant. Personally, I'm not real keen on anyone doing heroin in any circumstances. I just think it's better to think of it as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue.

But I'm curious about where the "ewww... a scar" thing came from. I have a friend who had a cesarean, and she wished she hadn't. Her objections weren't trivial: she had a difficult recovery, and taking care of a newborn is hard enough when you're not recovering from major surgery. I think that doctors often trivialize women's quality-of-life concerns. You're smart, we're stupid, and if we don't do what you say, it must be because we're silly and vain, if not evil. And I don't think it's that simple. Doctors view us as bodies, but they don't necessarily understand the totality of our lives. And they're not taught to be humble enough to realize that our priorities may not be the same as theirs.

I'm not saying that she's right to refuse the cesarean. I just get annoyed at the way that this gets discussed.

sally - your example is apples and oranges. clearly, your friend regretted the c-section because of the difficult recovery from surgery. That, of course, is a legitimate reason to not want a c-section. If there is a TRUE danger to the baby, and it is SIMPLY because of a scar that one doesn't want a c-section, then that's awful. (this goes for a husband/father too who doesn't want the mother to have a scar he'd find "ugly").

And with all due respect, your generality about doctors is WAY out of line. As a medical student, I find your generalized statement "Doctors view us as bodies" as ridiculous, rude, sexist. Ridiculous: try going through a YEAR of ob/gyn residency. Now try devoting your life to it. You'd realize that ob's are truly devoted people. Sexist: It reminds me of that joke about the man who brings his son to the ER and the doctor is his mom (gasp! they actually let women be doctors!). Rude: forget about me, but I'm pretty sure that NancyP has said she's a physician. Nancy, sorry to hear you view women as bodies (You pig!). Oh, and that you also think Sally is stupid and inferior to you! You meanie!

"sally - your example is apples and oranges. clearly, your friend regretted the c-section because of the difficult recovery from surgery. That, of course, is a legitimate reason to not want a c-section. If there is a TRUE danger to the baby, and it is SIMPLY because of a scar that one doesn't want a c-section, then that's awful. (this goes for a husband/father too who doesn't want the mother to have a scar he'd find "ugly")."

I don't understand what the orange is. *You* brought up the possibility that she didn't want a scar. (It's a stupid suggestion, incidentally, since she's already had two c-sections and already has a scar.) *You* invented the stupid, trivial reason that *in your head* might explain why she wouldn't want a c-section. *You* reverted to stereotypes about vain, silly women. There is no reason to think she is that kind of woman. The suggestion that she is reflects your ideas about women and patients, not the truth of the story.

And with all due respect, the fact that you're a medical student doesn't give you the last word on doctors. I promise you that doctors look different from the other side of the doctor/patient divide. I have personally had doctors who behaved just like you are here, who dismissed my legitimate concern for the quality of my life as frivilous vanity. It stinks, and it's all about misogyny, power, and the overwhelming arrogance of people who have been taught that they're much smarter than the poor jerks whose bodies are on the line. And frankly, the reason I don't have problems with NancyP is because she's never acted like that (and neither, I should say, have most of my doctors.)

But you have. And I really hope that you'll learn some humility and examine some of your own assumptions before you end up being the doctor whom all your patients hate.

a) I already have patients. Why don't I just placate your assumption and say "Yeah. They all hate me." I can also assume that all future patients will hate me too. *ha ha ha*

b) You did not say SOME doctors are bad. You said simply "doctors" - implying all. (PS - please don't be a patient of mine. I hope I never treat someone like you, who ASSUMES from the get-go that I'm mysogynist and look down on patients. Do you do this with all professionals with degrees, or are docs the only lucky ones?). Please back up your blanket statement of mine and NancyP's profession when you said we have "the overwhelming arrogance of people who have been taught that they're much smarter than the poor jerks whose bodies are on the line"

c) Also I challenge you to back up (with FACTS and CITES) your statement that I share all of those qualities.

d) I specificially said that I was NOT talking about THIS woman, but a hypothetical woman.

"b) You did not say SOME doctors are bad. You said simply "doctors" - implying all."

I didn't make myself clear, and I'm sorry about that. I do not, of course, think that all doctors are condescending misogynists. But "some" doctors doesn't really get at what I'm saying, either. I am saying that doctors are, on average, more likely to dismiss their clients' concerns and more likely to project their misogynistic understandings onto their patients than other people or other professionals are. And I'm suggested that, although the medical profession has made great strides towards addressing its systematic anti-woman bias, that still reflects something about the profession, rather than just the fact that there are creeps in every line of work.

I wouldn't say I "do this" with every profession, but I have tried to become more aware of the way power works in my own profession and the ways in which I could inadvertantly abuse that power and uphold inequality. That's basic to being a feminist, I think, or maybe just to being a person concerned with social justice. If I'm more critical of medicine than of other professions, it may be because I've had more extensive dealings with medicine than with any other profession other than my own. But it also may be because medicine deals with particularly intimate aspects of people's lives and because, frankly, medicine is worse than law or architecture.

"I hope I never treat someone like you, who ASSUMES from the get-go that I'm mysogynist and look down on patients."

I didn't assume that from the get-go. I came to that conclusion after reading your comments here. But it is true that patients bring to the medical relationship all of their past experiences, and that those of us who have had some bad medical experiences may be wary of doctors. You're just going to have to deal with that, if you're going to be a half-way decent doctor. It comes with the territory, I think.

"c) Also I challenge you to back up (with FACTS and CITES) your statement that I share all of those qualities."

I can't give you cites that say you share those qualities: I doubt too many journals have published studies on the relative arrogance and misogyny of you, personally. But to me, your suggestion that abortion is an "elective procedure," akin to a nose job, was a big red flag. It suggests that you understand your patients as bodies, not as people: that you're blind to the social, rather than the medical facts surrounding our conditions. This thread is another example: when faced with a woman who chose to ignore her doctors' recommendation, you immediately suggested that she was motivated by the most vain, frivilous reason, rather than by the more-likely non-vain, non-frivilous reasons that must occur to anyone with the extensive experience in gynecology and obstetrics that you seem to suggest you have.

"d) I specificially said that I was NOT talking about THIS woman, but a hypothetical woman."

No you didn't. Read back over your first comment: it's very clear that the "she" was the woman in the article. At any rate, it doesn't matter. It's misogynistic, in my view, to immediately bring up the "ewww.... a scar" thing when talking about hypothetical women who don't want c-sections. That's not the main or even a leading factor that makes some women not prefer that method of birth.

Eeek. Sorry to hijack the thread, Jessica!

i actually do know the woman in this case. in defence of her she never planned a home birth however she did makea booking for c-s which she never intended keeping. she was given information to make an informed choice. the law in qld places legal obligations on health professionals (as distinct from doctors) as well as others including school teachers to report situations where they believe a child (born or not) is at risk and then there are obligations placed on child safety officers to assess the situation and in view of the known deception over the canccelled c-s they had no alternative in my opinion than to go to the house. the law in qld was changed last year to protect unborn children- as distinct from a foetus because of sustained public pressure over a lengthy period of time following a number of instances where children died as a result of the illegal actions of others like assault and also the poor judgement of child safety officers in the past. everybody has a right to disagree with a law but a choice of civil disobedience carries with it consequences which society has validated through the laws made by its elected representatives