I found this post on our practitioners site very interesting and hope it
will have a great outcome if successful
Diane
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Mongan
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: {RMA} Here's the latest!! Lawsuit is going to take place.>
>
> Subject: Here's the latest!! Lawsuit is going to take place.
>
>
> http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/7730516.htm
>
> Posted on Sun, Jan. 18, 2004Hospital faces fight in birth dispute
> A now-moot Luzerne County court order for a Caesarian section will see a
> challenge.
> By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER
>
> WILKES-BARRE - Concerned his case could impact other pregnant women, a
> Plymouth man said Friday he's working with a national reproductive
rights
> group to challenge a court order that sought to force his wife to
undergo a
> Caesarean section against her will.
> John Marlowe said he's pressing on with the case - even though the order
is
> moot since his wife already gave birth to an 11 pound, 9 ounce baby -
> because he doesn't want other couples to endure the stress they did as
they
> battled hospital officials regarding their decision.
> "It's more than my wife. What happens to the next lady that goes in
there?"
> Marlowe said. "If they get away with this, what it's telling people
across
> the country is a hospital has a right to do what it wants, and the woman
has
> no rights."
> Marlowe's wife, Amber, checked out against medical advice from
Wilkes-Barre
> General Hospital on Wednesday morning after physicians there insisted
she
> have a Caesarean section because of concerns about the fetus' weight,
which
> was estimated at 13 pounds. She later gave birth vaginally at Moses
Taylor
> Hospital in Scranton.
> Unbeknownst to the Marlowes, after they left General Hospital, attorneys
for
> Wyoming Valley Healthcare System sought a court order to gain
guardianship
> of the fetus in case the Marlowes returned to their hospital. The order,
> granted without the Marlowes' knowledge, forbade them from refusing a
> Caesarean section if doctors there deemed it medically necessary.
> Kevin McDonald, spokesman for the health-care system, said Friday the
> hospital stands by its decision to seek the order. "These were really
unique
> circumstances. We did what we believed was in the best interest of the
> patient."
> McDonald said as far as the health system is concerned the legal dispute
is
> over.
> "The injunction was only effective if she came to our hospital and we
had to
> do a Caesarean section. Since that didn't happen, the order is moot," he
> said.
> But Lynn Paltrow, an attorney specializing in women's reproductive
rights,
> said the issue goes far deeper than the Marlowes.
> "This is not a conflict between a pregnant woman and a fetus. It is a
> conflict between a pregnant woman and her fetus against the raw power of
the
> state to impose an unnecessary surgical procedure on a woman's own
body."
> Paltrow, of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women in New York City,
said
> she's working with the Marlowes to find a Pennsylvania attorney to fight
> Conahan's order. She said she believes the couple might also have a
civil
> case against the hospital for violating their rights.
> Marlowe said he and his wife are still considering their options and
might
> file suit seeking monetary damages. But he said money is not the key
factor
> motivating him.
> "We're talking civil liberties issues, not suing for money," he said.
"Right
> now you have a judge saying a hospital has the right to claim
guardianship
> of an unborn fetus and guardianship after it is born. That's
unacceptable.
> We need to set a precedent that a hospital cannot have higher rights
than
> the parents."
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
