Involuntary surgery

A dangerous precedent might possibly be set in the near future. I was expecting this case to receive much broader media coverage but I am simply not seeing it.

Melissa Rowland, a 28 year old adult competent woman, was advised that she needed to have a Caesarean section in order to save the life of her fetus. For strictly cosmetic reasons, she declined the surgery. On January 13th of this year, she gave birth to twins, a boy who survived and a girl who did not.

Normally, this would just be another sad case, but then the Utah prosecutors decided to charge her with murder. And not just any type of murder, but first-degree murder. Obviously, the charge is completely ludicrous, our society right now recognizes the right of people to determine whether or not they will be subjected to surgical procedures. If I don't want to undergo surgery because I don't like the smell of hospitals, then that is my choice.

But wait, maybe its not as obvious as we might think:

Once a mother has chosen to carry her baby to term, she is obligated to care more for the well-being of her child than her own unless her life is in imminent danger.

The DA involved in the case obviously thinks that he is doing the right thing:

Kent Morgan, District Attorney's Office: “And the conduct was that she omitted her duty to take care of her child and get affirmative treatment. That’s what makes this case so egregious.”

The above link also has a picture of Melissa Rowland, who isn't exactly a poster girl, which makes her an ideal target for the moral/religious "we know whats right for you" crowd.

I'll make my position clear here. Under no circumstances is it ever acceptable to force a competent adult into surgery against her will. Personally, I don't think it is acceptable to force anybody into surgery against their will, competent or not, but I understand why people feel that they need to get all paternalistic so often.

The relevent principle that applies here is called the "child as maximum" principle, and it was surprisingly difficult to find a reference to it on the web. In brief:

b. our obligation to ensure the fetus's welfare can equal but not exceed
our obligation to a born child
c. child as a maximum principle emphasizes that our duties to a born child
constitute an upper bound for our duties to a fetus rather than a strict
equivalent, because the potential for wronging one person (mother) in
effort to aid another (fetus) will be greater

An easier way to think of it would be to ask what a father would be expected to do for his born child. If it is acceptable to force a father to undergo surgery against his will for a live child, then it might be acceptable to do so for a fetus. You can't even think about charging a mother for drinking during pregnancy unless you are willing to charge a father for drinking around his born children.

This case completely fails the "child as maximum" test. If a father needed to donate some bone marrow to save his kid, and he refused, would he be charged with murder? You can disagree with choice Ms. Rowlands made and claim that putting cosmetic concerns above the life of her fetus is a stunningly selfish act... but it is not murder. It's not assault. It's not negligence.

It is a choice, and it is a choice that nobody else had the right to make for her.