I haven't noticed any postings about this on Feministing yet so I wanted to say something briefly about it, to get a discussion going. This post concerns the recent New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. V.M. and B.G. case, and the issues raised about competency during labour and pregnancy more generally.
I recently read an excellent article by Louise Marie Roth at the Huffington Post on this case. I don't think I can articulate the arguments better but wanted to see what the feministing community felt about this, particularly the majority based in the USA, as there have recently been more setbacks than steps-forward in the arena of women's reproductive health and rights.
Briefly stated: VM was in labour and an obstetrician advised a c-section. She refused. The obstetrician found that she was competent to make the decision. VM vaginally delivered a healthy baby. The baby was not handed over to her parents. The judge in the original case agreed that the refusal of VM (and agreement of her partner BG) constituted abuse and neglect of their child and approved a plan to terminate their parental rights.
The district and appellate courts not only placed fetal rights ahead of the bodily integrity of the woman giving birth but have now set a precedent for interfering with parental rights over decisions that are competently made and result in no harm to the child in question. I'm pretty sure the former is a more worrying trend but the latter isn't too fabulous either.
As I mentioned, I'm not adding much to Roth's article but wanted to draw attention to yet another example of paternalistic infringement of women's rights.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Woman in Labour is/can be Incompetent??.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15124
There is much more to this story than a woman refusing a c-section. Other articles tell a more sorted story. I'm not going to jump in with any more than what I've said because the whole court battle and her life story are unclear. Please read up more about the case before automatically jumping to conclusions.
Can you share some of the links? I can't find anything. Thanks.
That may be so, the the precedent would be set. I've had to study OB/GYN and L&D in nursing, and there is no doubt doctors and hospitals would prefer more cesareans over the wishes of pregnant women. How far would the law go against pregnant women accused of abusing or endangering their fetuses/babies? What constitutes abuse or endangerment of a fetus? Stanlie's linked article tells a good story, and comments appear respectful.
http://jezebel.com/5321226/not-wanting-a-cesarean-qualifies-as-mental-illness
I'm a student nurse, future midwife and long time women's health advocate. I agree with all your statements.
The medical establishment perpetrates thousands of medical abuses a day. I'm asking for the full story, not the part that is designed to make me angry.
"(who had a history of mental illness and going off her meds)" [From the Jezebel article]
What kind of mental illness, and how severe? I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that it's OK to take kids away from their moms b/c their moms have "mental illness". Not every mental illness automatically prevents you from being a good parent. I do realize that it says right after that some of the evaluating psychiatrists said she was schizophrenic, but IDK if you can accurately diagnose a mental illness right in the middle of what must be a huge trauma for this woman and her family, because she's obviously not going to be in her usual state of mind. The way the Jezebel article is written, it seems to imply that schizophrenia is not her original diagnosis.
I don't think going off your meds is all that uncommon, either. Meds for mental illness especially tend to have some pretty shitty side effects, and while it's a very bad idea to just stop taking them, often people get to the point where they feel that the side effects are worse than the disease. I'd be surprised if the majority of mental illness patients didn't go off their meds occasionally. Is a mental illness patient, having made that mistake a few times in their younger years, forbidden to ever have children? Or even someone who was still doing it, but had a relatively benign illness like mild GAD?
I'm not claiming she's totally fer-sure a fit mother, because I don't think there's any way to tell for sure with the evidence that's been reported in the news. But something about this whole thing doesn't sit well with me at all.
Oh and just in case, I'm not trying to attribute any views here to pepper; I just replied to her because she posted the link and I thought it'd be confusing to quote that snippet of the Jezzie post in a top-level threadlet thingy. :)
There's a more complete report of the case at Salon:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/07/23/c_section_neglect/print.html
The appeals court actually agrees that the c-section decision should not be considered relevant to the mother's mental competence:
"To allow such a decision to factor into potential charges of abuse or neglect requires a prospective mother to subjugate her personal decision to a governmental agency's statutory interpretation creating a scenario that was neither contemplated nor incorporated within the four corners of the relevant statutory language. Her decision on matters as critical as this invasive procedure must be made without interference or threat. V.M.'s decision to forego a c-section had no place in these proceedings."
I hadn't originally been able to find much more information on the case - and accept that it is more complicated than was presented in Roth's article. Thanks to community posters for further links. I had (subsequent to my original post) found the Salon article which is far more comprehensive.
On reading the judgement of the appellate court I still have some reservations. It is true that the judges eschewed the issue of the refusal of a c-section (quite rightfully), but there is evidence presented in the various opinions within the court record (http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf) that concerns me about the treatment of pregnant/birthing women and mothers with psychiatric illness.
The fact that VM was off her medications is a positive, in that she should not have been on them while pregnant. This means that she needs support and close monitoring - something she did not seek or obtain. This is a problem but I wonder if subsequent to giving birth the best approach is to punish someone by removing their child altogether. I certainly have a problem with using her erratic behaviour while off-medication as evidence of abuse and neglect.
While the child's safety comes first, I wonder if there is some kind of compromise that can be reached with the DYFS about conditional custody (involving medication and regular visits by care workers)? VM's condition is a treatable one. The fact that she was erratic/combative etc while off medication proves only that she needs to take it. If taking medication was a condition of custody, this may be a strong motivator to take it. Reports from psychologists were mixed so it's not certain that this would fail.
While this case is a complex one, and certainly not as straightforward as I originally perceived it to be, I still have a problem with the removal of the child without attempting alternatives.
It sounds like DYFS tried to meet her halfway, and she refused.
"Well, apparently, neither parent showed up to the first court hearing, days after J.M.G. was born, and when a caseworker called to ask where they were, B.G. answered, claimed he was not B.G., and claimed not to know who the caseworker was or anything about a hearing. Thus J.M.G. was placed in foster care. After the next hearing, where V.M.'s history of psychiatric illness and refusal to take prescribed medication came up, two psychologists who attempted to evaluate V.M. and B.G. ended up getting restraining orders against them; the second "was assaulted in the parents' home." Additionally, "The group contracted to provide parenting classes stated that it could not provide V.M. with services absent a psychological evaluation due to her disruptive and uncontrollable behavior." Oh, and somewhere in there, V.M. claimed she had consented to a c-section, despite all evidence to the contrary."
So far as I can tell, DYFS made every effort to attempt alternatives and VM refused, as well as assaulting people.
It's interesting that DYFS would mandate parenting classes for a mother whose baby they took from her before she left the hospital. What, exactly, are the "parenting classes" supposed to correct? She has never had a chance to "parent" the child!
Having worked on these kinds of cases before, I want to stress how important it is for feminists not to think of issues in silos, as the Salon author does. In this case, reproductive rights is intimately connected to both a long history of society (and especially the legal system) characterizing women who challenge authority as "mentally ill" AND a punitive, arbitrary, class and race-based child welfare system (please see "Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare" by Dorothy Roberts).
When the Salon author flippantly states that "this woman isn't the poster girl for reproductive rights" she is explicitly rejecting an intersectional analysis in this case and basically telling VM that "we don't want you and 'your issues' in the movement."