Sunday, July 19, 2009

When Doctors go too far...

This is not a blog personally written by myself. So I will hand the credit off to the chapter of The International Cesarean Awareness Network of Somerset New Jersey.
I read this yesterday, and had to pass the word along on this horrible case. My heart breaks for the mother who still, months later does not have custody of her baby because she refused a cesarean. I would be paranoid and mentally distraught if someone took my baby too!

UPDATE on the case where NJ DYFS removed child from a mom who refused a cesarean

I spoke with "V" the other day and the appellate court reached a decision against her. They decided to confirm that abuse and neglect had been committed against the child over V's refusal of a cesarean during labor. The following document was released by the NJ courts and should dispel any rumors about the actuality of this case.

The story is a bit mixed in the report above. They wanted her to sign a blanket consent form upon arrival at the hospital for a cesarean. She refused and they got mad stressing the importance of their ability to do a cesarean quickly if necessary. Later, the baby was "showing signs of distress." So what did they do? They tried even harder to push the potential need for a cesarean.

The fact is that cesareans are seldom so emergent that there is no time for consent. St Barnabas has a nearly 50% cesarean rate. Why couldn't they do something else to relieve the alleged "stress" on the baby before yelling at this women about a cesarean? Why not try repositioning her? They were upset about how V acted in labor. That's why it's called labor! It doesn't tickle! The report claims the nurses were trying to restrain her. V claims they bruised her because they were so rough. Baby was born at 35 weeks and was in good health for being slightly premature and doesn't seem to have suffered distress during labor (of course "distress" in labor is NOT easily defined, especially when diagnosed by looking at fetal monitors).

As far as the custodial issue goes, DYFS psychiatrists don't believe that V is capable of caring for a child. They stressed to her that it is a 24 hour job. They don't think she could feed or diaper a baby. They are concerned because she has had psychiatric problems in the past.

I'm not trying to preach a belief that V would be mother of the year. But the custodial issue only came up because she delivered at St Barnabas and they wanted the freedom to do a c-section at will. DYFS always seems to be willing to work with illegal drug addicted mothers and return their children after a working with them. I personally know of a case where the mom went back on drugs and moved. DYFS and CPS of the particular state haven't acted very quickly trying to remove that child from the situation.

A judge told V in one of her hearings that he felt she would be too argumentative and that would wind up hurting her child. For instance, she would argue with teachers and receptionists at the dentist office. Well, I'm sure all NJ teachers and receptionists are breathing a sigh of relief since parents so seldom aruge with them.

They call V paranoid and claim there is something wrong with her. I think I'd be paranoid too if someone took my baby away from me. Physically and emotionally, that has to take an incredible toll on a woman who is not expecting that. V wishes the doctors had told they didn't believe she was fit to be a mother so she could have made arrangements to have her child cared for by someone she knew. V is being told that doctors can decide which people are fit to be parents.

This is a tough case. It was all instigated over a cesarean that was not ultimately needed. How much time and money are being invested into keeping V's child away from her rather than trying to work with her and help her learn whatever parenting skills they feel she needs?

No comments: