RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

WyldHrt -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/3/2011 6:57:28 PM)

quote:

Laced throughout the posts on this thread is the point the feeling that someone maybe getting away with something, instead of thoughts about the future and what putting the actions of pregnant women up to legal scrutiny could mean. Like domiguy said, wanna look at what women eat, how much sleep they get, did they get enough exercise?

If we want women to become incubators the last few months they are pregnant, and a fair application of law, that means everything a woman does could come under the supervision of the legal system. I have no faith in our justice system to fairly apply the law, there are too many times overzealous prosecutors use laws to make their careers, and justice has little to do with their agenda in many cases

This is the same problem I'm having. If I thought it would go no further, I might support these prosecutions, but I see one hell of a slippery slope here. Eat too much tuna while pregnant? Child abuse. Get up when the doc wants you on bed rest? Child endangerment. Lose a baby after a car accident? Could be manslaughter if you were speeding.
I just don't like what I see here.



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/3/2011 8:22:07 PM)

quote:

You claim to work with drug damaged infants. I would be completely amazed if the healthcare community you work with smiled upon smoking while pregnant. I was STRONGLY warned 21 years ago against the dangers of smoking while pregnant, and yet you treat it like it is no big deal. The article I quoted said 1/3 of SIDs deaths could be averted by smoking cessation while a woman is pregnant... that article was 5 years old. I found another article from 2008 that said the evidence was strong that SIDs is causally related to smoking. That is very strong wording, because as you know it is hard to say one thing is the cause of another...


Actually, what was said was this...

quote:

about one-third of SIDS deaths might have been prevented if all fetuses had not been exposed to maternal smoking in uter


We changed the positions of infants while sleeping. It dropped the rate of SIDS by 11%.

A 2006 study states a brain abnormality is seen in SIDS babies.

Oct. 31, 2006 - Researchers have identified a brain defect they think is a major contributor to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

The findings provide the strongest evidence yet of a specific neurological cause for SIDS, a little-understood condition that kills roughly 2,500 infants each year in the United States.

In the study, autopsy tissue taken from babies who had died of SIDS and other causes showed abnormalities in the lower brain stems of the SIDS babies. Among other things, this region of the brain is thought to help regulate breathing and arousal.

Environmental factors, such as stomach sleeping, overheating, and exposure to cigarette smoke are all believed to increase a baby's risk of death from SIDS.

But the search for a biological link has turned up little, until now.

"This is very good evidence that there definitely is a biological problem that contributes to SIDS," neuroscientist and study co-author David S. Paterson, PhD, tells WebMD.

"There very well may be other biological causes which have not been identified. This gives us a good starting point to keep looking," says Paterson, of Boston Children's Hospital.

The Serotonin System

Boston Children's Hospital neuropathologist Hannah Kinney, MD, has searched for a biological cause for SIDS for the past two decades.

She and Paterson had previously identified defects in the serotonin system of the lower brain stem in babies who had died of SIDS.

The brain stem serotonin system is believed to help coordinate breathing, blood pressure, sensitivity to carbon dioxide, arousal, and temperature. Serotonin works as a chemical messenger in this system.

Kinney and Paterson believe babies who die of SIDS actually suffocate from breathing the carbon dioxide they exhale during sleep.

Normal babies wake up when the air they breathe contains too much carbon dioxide and not enough oxygen, but the thinking is that babies susceptible to SIDS lack this arousal reflex.

In their latest study, which appears in the Nov. 1 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, the researchers confirmed their earlier findings and expanded on them.

http://www.data-yard.net/10p2/sids.htm

Then, we have this... 2010.

Conclusion Compared with controls, SIDS was associated with lower 5-HT and TPH2 levels, consistent with a disorder of medullary 5-HT deficiency.

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the sudden death of an infant younger than 1 year that remains unexplained after a complete autopsy and death scene investigation.1​ Typically, an apparently healthy infant is found dead after a sleep period,2 with death presumably occurring during sleep or one of the many transitions between sleep and waking.3​,4 The recognition that prone sleep position increases the risk for SIDS led to national campaigns,5​ but despite initial success, the overall SIDS rate has plateaued over the last decade.3,4​ SIDS remains the leading cause of postneonatal infant mortality in the United States, with an overall rate of 0.54 per 1000 live births.6,7​

One model underlying SIDS research is the triple-risk model, which posits that SIDS results from the simultaneous occurrence in the infant of an underlying vulnerability, a critical developmental period, and an exogenous stressor.8 In 3 independent data sets assessing infants with SIDS, our laboratory has consistently reported serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT]) receptor binding abnormalities in regions of the medulla oblongata critical to state-dependent homeostatic regulation,9​,10,11​ ie, the medullary 5-HT system.3,12​ In the third data set, we also found increased 5-HT neuronal densities as well as decreased 5-HT transporter binding relative to 5-HT neuronal number.11 Thus, we propose that SIDS results from an abnormality of the medullary 5-HT system that causes an inability to restore homeostasis following life-threatening challenges, eg, asphyxia, during a sleep period and leads to sudden death in the critical first year of life, when homeostatic systems are still maturing.12​

The question remains as to whether underproduction or overproduction of 5-HT is associated with abnormal 5-HT receptor binding in SIDS. In this study we tested the main hypothesis that SIDS is associated with reductions in tissue levels of 5-HT, its key biosynthetic enzyme (tryptophan hydroxylase [TPH2]), or both, thereby representing a 5-HT deficiency disorder.

The 3 other study objectives were (1) to compare infants dying from SIDS with hospitalized infants who had chronic hypoxia-ischemia prior to death to evaluate the putative effects of impaired oxygenation on 5-HT tissue markers, given that some infants with SIDS experience repetitive apnea and agonal impaired gasping prior to death4,12​,13,14​,15; (2) to analyze 5-HT1A receptor binding to verify that this data set displays the same alterations we observed previously9​,10,11​; and (3) to examine levels of norepinephrine and dopamine and the metabolite 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid to address whether medullary abnormalities in SIDS involve the catecholamine system.

5-HT, Catecholamine, and Metabolite Levels

Samples were available from 35 SIDS cases, 5 controls, and 5 hospitalized infants. Age-adjusted mean levels of 5-HT in SIDS cases were 26% lower than in controls in both the PGCL (31.4 pmol/mg protein [95% confidence interval {CI}, 23.7 to 39.0] vs 40.0 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, 20.1 to 60.0], P = .04) and the raphé obscurus (55.4 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, 47.2 to 63.6] vs 75.5 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, 54.2 to 96.8], P = .05) (Table 2). However, 5-HIAA levels and 5-HIAA:5-HT ratio did not indicate excessive degradation of 5-HT in SIDS cases. There were no significant differences in catecholamine levels between SIDS cases and controls. Dopamine levels, however, were 640% higher in the raphé obscurus in the hospitalized group compared with the SIDS group (81.7 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, 37.6 to 125.8] vs 11.1 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, −3.6 to 25.8], P = .006). Moreover, 5-HT levels were 55% higher in the raphé obscurus (85.6 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, 61.8 to 109.4] vs 55.4 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, 47.2 to 63.6], P = .02) and 126% higher in the PGCL (71.1 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, 49.0 to 93.2] vs 31.4 pmol/mg protein [95% CI, 23.7 to 39.0], P = .002) in the hospitalized group compared with the SIDS group (Table 2)

Risk Factors in the SIDS Cases

To determine if known risk factors for SIDS were associated with abnormalities in 1 or more 5-HT parameters in the medulla, an analysis of risk factors relative to the 5-HT parameters was undertaken. Risk factors for SIDS (Table 1, eTable 2, and eTable 3) were subdivided into “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” categories.11​ Extrinsic factors, eg, prone sleep position,3,4​,6,7​ are physical stressors that place a vulnerable infant at risk for homeostatic derangements around the time of death; intrinsic factors, eg, prematurity and male sex,3,4​,6,7​,21,22​ are postulated to affect the underlying vulnerability in the infant. Ninety-five percent (39/41) of SIDS cases had 1 or more risk factor, and 88% (36/41) had 2 or more. Ninety-three percent had at least 1 extrinsic risk factor, ie, prone (49%) and side (14%) sleep position, face down (37%), bed sharing (20%), and trivial illness prior to death (44%) (eTable 2). We found no associations between risk factors and 5-HT tissue levels (eTable 3). Significant differences were found, however, for 5-HT1A receptor binding in the raphé obscurus if the infant with SIDS was found dead in a risky sleep position (47.32 fmol/mg tissue [95% CI, 38.23 to 56.38] for prone or side sleep position vs 26.76 fmol/mg tissue [95% CI, 15.64 to 37.88] for supine position) or in an adult bed (49.06 fmol/mg tissue [95% CI, 34.20 to 63.92] vs 32.76 fmol/mg tissue [95% CI, 21.38 to 44.14] in a crib) (eTable 3). Binding levels were significantly lower if the infant with SIDS did not have the risk factor. In addition, TPH2 levels were lower in the infants with SIDS and with recent illness (165.7% [95% CI, 143.3% to 188.0%]) than those without recent illness (138.0% [95% CI, 126.6% to 149.4%]). In this data set we found no effect for male sex (eTable 3).

........

The finding of at least 1 risk factor in 95% of SIDS cases underscores the importance of risk factors in the pathogenesis of SIDS, even in the era of the recommendation for supine sleep position. The finding of 2 or more risk factors in 88% of SIDS cases further underscores that SIDS results from the simultaneous occurrence of multiple events.3 Infants with SIDS but without known extrinsic risk factors had significantly lower 5-HT1A receptor binding, suggesting that additional risk factors are necessary to precipitate death when the medullary 5-HT system is less compromised.

These findings raise the question as to how reduced 5-HT and TPH2 levels are related to the increased 5-HT cell density,11​ morphologic 5-HT neuronal immaturity,11 reduced 5-HT transporter binding relative to 5-HT cell number,11​ and altered 5-HT receptor binding9,10​,11 in the SIDS cases. We hypothesize that TPH2 levels are reduced in the medullary 5-HT system for as-yet unknown developmental, genetic, and/or environmental reasons, with a secondary reduction in 5-HT levels and impaired 5-HT neurotransmission. We further propose that insufficient 5-HT levels early in development, potentially as early as the first or second trimester, result in a compensatory increase in immature 5-HT neurons with immature (decreased) 5-HT1A binding and 5-HT transporter levels.34 That the defect is partial rather than total could explain why medullary 5-HT-mediated pathways function reasonably well at baseline or during waking but are unable to respond to homeostatic stressors during sleep when the partial deficit is potentially unmasked, thereby resulting in sudden death. Our data suggest that future animal models mimicking the 5-HT abnormalities of SIDS should focus on underproduction, rather than overproduction, of 5-HT and TPH2.



Funding/Support: This study was supported by the First Candle/SIDS Alliance, CJ Martin Overseas Fellowship (National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia), CJ Murphy Foundation for Solving the Puzzle of SIDS, CJ Foundation for SIDS, National Institute of Child Health and Development (R37-HD20991 and PO1-HD036379), and Developmental Disabilities Research Center, Children's Hospital Boston (P30-HD18655)

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/5/430.full?home

Dr Kinney has researched this for over 20 years. So, who do we believe?



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/3/2011 8:33:36 PM)

quote:

From the OP:
"When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence."


How can you have proof when the girl hasnt gone to trial yet?

I have pointed this out more than once. She may never stand trial for the depraved heart charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved_heart_murder

Depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is an American legal term for an action that demonstrates a "callous disregard for human life" and results in death. In most states, depraved heart killings constitute second-degree murder.[1]

If no death results, such acts would generally be defined as reckless endangerment and possibly other crimes, such as assault.

The common law punishes unintentional homicide as murder if the defendant commits an act of gross recklessness. A classic example of depraved-heart murder under the common law is in the case Commonwealth v. Malone, where the court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction of a teenager for a death arising from a game of Russian roulette.[2]

Depraved-heart murder is recognized in the Model Penal Code § 210.2(1)(b).[3] The Model Penal Code considers unintentional killing to constitute murder when the conduct of the defendant manifests "extreme indifference to the value of human life".


quote:

It's sad that people are uninterested in discussing other options and choose to rehash the discredited same old, same old.......


Which I did address... in quite a lengthy post.




juliaoceania -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/3/2011 8:35:46 PM)

I am going to believe the NIH, and if you like and because I am highly interested, I could call an OBGYN here in my community tomorrow and ask their professional opinion.

Smoking causes premature birth, low birth weight, and has been linked with SIDs. You have repeatedly defended smoking while pregnant, why? Why are you defending an indefensible thing? You, who say that you have worked with babies and are disgusted when they are born unhealthy are defending smoking while pregnant? Is it because it is your drug of choice? It is easy to judge those "other" women over there for being addicted.... why can't those bitches quit? When confronted with your own addiction, you do not want to look at it? This is the ultimate hypocrisy in my mind.

I found out I was pregnant when I was almost 3 months along, I had no medical insurance so I did not get a test until I found a doctor that would take me in my area without insurance. I quit smoking by the time I was 4 months along.. it was hard and I started smoking again the day he was born, in fact I did not see it as "quitting", just taking a break... I know how hard it is. Perhaps that is why I have compassion for addicted women. It isn't easy staying clean from something you crave.



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/3/2011 9:16:21 PM)

quote:

Smoking causes premature birth, low birth weight, and has been linked with SIDs. You have repeatedly defended smoking while pregnant, why? Why are you defending an indefensible thing? You, who say that you have worked with babies and are disgusted when they are born unhealthy are defending smoking while pregnant? Is it because it is your drug of choice? It is easy to judge those "other" women over there for being addicted.... why can't those bitches quit? When confronted with your own addiction, you do not want to look at it? This is the ultimate hypocrisy in my mind.


First, how about dropping the foul language.

Second, smoking can cause low birth weights. No one has denied that.

So, lets address low birth weights.

quote:

Smoking causes premature birth, low birth weight, and has been linked with SIDs


Living in Colorado causes low birth weights, per NIH.

Since you wish to consider only the NIH as a source...

quote:

Abstract
This study aimed to analyse the relationship between smoking and preterm birth (22-36 weeks) according to the main obstetric complications leading to the preterm birth, both overall and by parity. The EUROPOP study is a case-control study carried out between 1994 and 1997; 3,787 preterm and 5,602 full-term births were included, from maternity units in 10 countries, using the same protocol. Social, demographic and medical information was collected after delivery, from obstetric records and interviews with the mothers. Cases were classified according to the main obstetric complication (hypertension, haemorrhage, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), idiopathic spontaneous preterm labour, intrauterine growth retardation, all other causes). Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to control for confounders. Twenty four percent of cases and 20% of controls were smokers. Smoking during pregnancy, heavy smoking (>or=10 cigarettes per day) in particular, was a risk factor for preterm birth (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI:1.20-1.60). Smoking increased the risk of preterm delivery due to all obstetric complications other than hypertension. For these complications, the risk of preterm delivery associated with smoking was higher for multiparae (aOR = 1.46, 95% CI:1.24-1.71) than for primiparae (aOR = 1.18, 95% CI:1.00-1.38). In conclusion, smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of preterm birth among women with all obstetric complications except hypertension. This association is stronger in multiparae than in primiparae and the risk is higher for heavy smokers.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17726581

My question to you is simple. If only 24% of the cases were from mother's who smoked.... Where is the other 76% coming from?



juliaoceania -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/3/2011 9:37:19 PM)

quote:

First, how about dropping the foul language.

Second, smoking can cause low birth weights. No one has denied that.

So, lets address low birth weights.


I will call an OBGYN as soon as I can get one on the phone and I will ask about smoking risks and pregnancy...

You claim to work with infants... are you really saying that it is okay to smoke while pregnant? Even if there is a small risk to a baby that a woman is carrying, is it an acceptable risk? You are talking about locking up someone for something that has not been shown to be risky, and you do not want to address the very real and provable risks that smoking presents?

Now, we can throw around articles, the fact remains I am willing to bet that if I call a random OBGYN they will tell me that smoking has been shown to be related to SIDs. You work in this field and you have not once said what the doctors around you say about smoking while pregnant. And then there is the fact that Smoking has been shown to increase the risk of miscarriage as well as premature birth, which miscarriages that happen after the "all important age of viability" could be rightly attributed to cigarettes, want to throw those women in jail?


Why are you defending the indefensible? You want to lock up one set of addicts and let another set go free. You throw around academic journals to justify this, when at the same time you say that we need to use our common sense about cocaine and pregnancy. Well, anyone can tell you smoking is bad for you, and therefore you shouldn't smoke while pregnant.

If we apply these laws fairly, smoking mothers should be doing time too.



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/3/2011 10:34:17 PM)

quote:

You claim to work with infants... are you really saying that it is okay to smoke while pregnant? Even if there is a small risk to a baby that a woman is carrying, is it an acceptable risk? You are talking about locking up someone for something that has not been shown to be risky, and you do not want to address the very real and provable risks that smoking presents?


Show where I ever said it was ok. Then, show where I said, myself, I cut back to two smokes a day while pregnant. Living in Colorado is a small risk. Higher altitudes do cause smaller babies. So does being Hispanic or Native American.

Just so we are clear on this one issue.... I DO NOT CONDONE THE SMOKING WHILE PREGNANT. My OBGYN happened to believe that the stress of completely quitting wasnt worth the risk compared to what I cut down too. According to the March of Dimes...

Chronic and severe stress during pregnancy may lead to high blood pressure, premature birth and low birthweight.

Considering smoking has not been shown to cause high blood pressure according to your NIH, then my Dr considered that the best alternative.

He also didnt believe in too many untrasounds during birth. As young as he was, he didnt hold much with the "newest fashions" in medicine.

And, I dont CLAIM to do anything... I can slide you my RN License number any ole time you want to verify. I can even slide you the list of obstetrical units I have worked for.

quote:

Now, we can throw around articles, the fact remains I am willing to bet that if I call a random OBGYN they will tell me that smoking has been shown to be related to SIDs. You work in this field and you have not once said what the doctors around you say about smoking while pregnant. And then there is the fact that Smoking has been shown to increase the risk of miscarriage as well as premature birth, which miscarriages that happen after the "all important age of viability" could be rightly attributed to cigarettes, want to throw those women in jail?


The article I showed you also addressed those issues. Again, 24% smoked. What causes all those incidences among the other 76%? Ask your OBGYN that. He will give you a long list of why's.

quote:

Why are you defending the indefensible? You want to lock up one set of addicts and let another set go free. You throw around academic journals to justify this, when at the same time you say that we need to use our common sense about cocaine and pregnancy. Well, anyone can tell you smoking is bad for you, and therefore you shouldn't smoke while pregnant.



Repeatedly, I have stated these women need to be forthcoming during prenatal care. That avoids the whole issue completely. They are being held back by feminists groups intent on keeping the terror of women for control and the main stream media who latch onto any story that may get them headlines.

To date, Serotonin is the causual factor in SIDS. As you stated, the others may increase the risk. Many things can increase the risks.

quote:

Thus, we propose that SIDS results from an abnormality of the medullary 5-HT system that causes an inability to restore homeostasis following life-threatening challenges, eg, asphyxia, during a sleep period and leads to sudden death in the critical first year of life, when homeostatic systems are still maturing.


This isnt based upon survery or charts, but the actual tissue of babies who died from SIDS.

quote:

You throw around academic journals to justify this, when at the same time you say that we need to use our common sense about cocaine and pregnancy.


quote:

RESULTS:
Thirty three studies met our inclusion criteria. For all end points of interest (rates of major malformations, low birth weight, prematurity, placental abruption, premature rupture of membrane [PROM], and mean birth weight, length and head circumference), cocaine-exposed infants had higher risks than children of women not exposed to any drug. However, most of these adverse effects were nullified when cocaine exposed children were compared to children exposed to polydrug but no cocaine. Only the risk of placental abruption and premature rupture of membranes were statistically associated with cocaine use itself.
CONCLUSIONS:
Many of the perinatal adverse effects commonly attributed to cocaine may be caused by the multiple confounders that can occur in a cocaine using mother. Only the risk for placental abruption and PROM could be statistically related to cocaine. For other adverse effects, additional studies will be needed to ensure adequate statistical power


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11489591

Abstract
The outcome of infants born to cocaine-using drug dependent women was compared to that of infants of non-cocaine using drug dependent and non-drug dependent women. The study population included 150 pregnant women: 50 women used heroin and methadone plus cocaine, 50 used heroin and methadone minus cocaine, and 50 were non-drug dependent women. Significant differences were found between the cocaine and drug-free groups in infant birth weight, length, head circumference and Apgar scores, with the cocaine group having lower values for each variable. Average gestational age did not vary between the 3 groups. The cocaine group included 1 spontaneous abortion and 4 fetal deaths; non-cocaine drug dependent women had 2 fetal deaths, with none in the control group. Mean abstinence scores for 19 of the physiological and behavioral parameters were lower in the cocaine group than in the non-cocaine drug dependent women with the exception of vomiting and convulsions. These data suggest that: (1) infants born to drug dependent women have a poorer general outcome than those born to non-drug dependent women; (2) maternal cocaine use does not appear to increase the incidence of severe neonatal abstinence symptomatology; (3) pregnancies complicated by cocaine abuse have a greater chance for fetal loss resulting from both spontaneous abortions and fetal death; (4) infants born to cocaine abusing women had infants with decreased birth weight, head circumference, length and Apgar scores.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3683347

Physiological Effects and Complications of Cocaine Use During Pregnancy

Cocaine use during pregnancy poses a risk to both mother and fetus and has been associated with significant obstetric complications. Pregnant women who use cocaine have been found to have a higher incidence of poor weight gain and cardiac complications, such as hypertension, arryhythmia, cardiac ischemia, and hemorrhagic stroke (Kuczkowski, 2003; Plessinger & Woods, 1998; Vidaeff & Mastrobattista, 2003). Cocaine is known to have a negative additive effect to the already stressed cardiovascular system of the pregnant woman (Wagner, Katikaneni, Cox, & Ryan, 1998). In the pregnant state, the toxicity of cocaine is increased, thus increasing the risk for cardiovascular events such as stroke and seizures (Plessinger & Woods, 1998). Other adverse effects, including uterine rupture, hepatic rupture, placental abruption and maternal death, are known to occur more frequently in those using cocaine (Kuczkowski, 2003; Plessinger & Woods, 1998).

Cocaine's physiological effects, such as vasoconstriction, hypertension, and tachycardia during pregnancy, may have profound effects on the fetus. During pregnancy, cocaine causes vasoconstriction of the maternal uterine blood vessels. Oxygen and nutrients normally transferred to the fetus via these vessels are unable to reach the placenta and fetus resulting in uteroplacental insufficiency and fetal hypoxemia (Woods, Plessinger, & Clark, 1987). This vasoconstriction may be the primary cause for such complications as spontaneous abortion, premature labor and delivery, abruptio placentae, and fetal intracranial hemorrhage (Cohen, Green, & Crombleholme, 1991; Fajemirokun-Odudeyi & Lindow, 2004; Plessinger & Woods, 1998; Wootton & Miller, 1994).

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515684_4

The full extent of the effects of prenatal cocaine exposure on a child is not completely known, but many scientific studies have documented that babies born to mothers who abuse cocaine during pregnancy are often prematurely delivered, have low birth weights and smaller head circumferences, and are shorter in length than babies born to mothers who do not abuse cocaine.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to estimate the full extent of the consequences of maternal drug abuse and to determine the specific hazard of a particular drug to the unborn child. This is because multiple factors—such as the amount and number of all drugs abused, including nicotine; extent of prenatal care; possible neglect or abuse of the child; exposure to violence in the environment; socioeconomic conditions; maternal nutrition; other health conditions; and exposure to sexually transmitted diseases—can all interact to impact maternal, fetal, and child outcomes.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Cocaine/treatment.html#maternal

A statistic from NIH that may be found interesting... since I havent seen this percentage quoted as being this high from any other source.

Since the Back to Sleep campaign began, the number of SIDS deaths in the United States has dropped by more than 50 percent.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/womenshealth/research/pregbirth/sids.cfm

Is that enough information or do you need more?



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/3/2011 11:55:26 PM)

I think we need to take a look at the Mississippi law.

This is what I am addressing.

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-37 defines manslaughter to include the willful killing of an unborn quick child by an injury to the mother of such child. (SB 2869)

1972 Law...

(2) A person who intentionally injures a pregnant woman is guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) If the conduct results in a miscarriage or stillbirth by that individual, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than twenty (20) years or a fine of not more than Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00), or both.


Miss. Code Ann. § 11.7.13 includes the death of a fetus in wrongful death statute as murder or manslaughter. This law excludes acts committed by the mother, a medical procedure performed by a medical professional or lawfully prescribed medication.

http://www.michie.com/mississippi/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp ...... not much there

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19 defines murder to include murder that is done with deliberate design to effect the death of an unborn child.


§ 97-3-19. Homicide; murder defined; capital murder; lesser-included offenses.



(1) The killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases:

(a) When done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being;

(b) When done in the commission of an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual;

(c) When done without any design to effect death by any person engaged in the commission of any felony other than rape, kidnapping, burglary, arson, robbery, sexual battery, unnatural intercourse with any child under the age of twelve (12), or nonconsensual unnatural intercourse with mankind, or felonious abuse and/or battery of a child in violation of subsection (2) of Section 97-5-39, or in any attempt to commit such felonies;

(d) When done with deliberate design to effect the death of an unborn child.


a) They would have to prove that she intended to kill her baby. Hard to do unless they have testimony to that fact.

c) doesnt count. Just included for continuity.

d) again would have to be proved.

So the stickler here is b.... the depraved heart... which is possibly the only one they could use to convict, and these others would be easier if they have actual evidence of intent.

I did want to mention the new law there...

In 2011, the legislature revised the law to clarify that certain conduct resulting in "serious physical injury to the embryo or fetus" is a felony punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment. (SB No. 2615, signed February 24, 2011, effective July 1, 2011.)

But this wont fit the case with Gibbs because it was signed into law after the fact.

Depraved-heart murder and culpable-negligence [*6] manslaughter are distinguishable simply by degree of mental state of culpability. In short, depraved-heart murder involves a higher degree of recklessness from which malice or deliberate design may be implied.




Seems to me, from reading the Courts decision in the other matter, that it will come down to how reckless was she.

Was she reckless? Or was she simply young and didnt know better like the child with the gun?

Again, Im not sure how that will play out before the Supreme Court of Mississippi. I can, potentially, see this case making it to the SCOTUS if the State SC doesnt find in her favor and drop the depraved heart charge. And, without that charge, I dont believe the state will have a case against her.

And, with that, I am done with this thread. We will just have to agree to disagree.



juliaoceania -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/4/2011 7:53:23 AM)

quote:

Considering smoking has not been shown to cause high blood pressure according to your NIH, then my Dr considered that the best alternative.


Smoking does not cause high blood pressure?

http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/kicking-habit

Did you know that smoking and heart disease are related? Or that smoking increases blood pressure? Most people associate cigarette smoking with breathing problems and lung cancer. But people who smoke are more also likely to develop hypertension and heart disease.



My blood pressure fell 15 points when I quit smoking....perhaps you should have went with a different doctor?


quote:

The article I showed you also addressed those issues. Again, 24% smoked. What causes all those incidences among the other 76%? Ask your OBGYN that. He will give you a long list of why's


But the SIDs death mentioned in the OP you had no trouble attributing to an illegal substance?

People get lung cancer that do not smoke. There are other environmental causes, such as asbestos exposure. Your reasoning is very flawed, it is like saying that one shouldn't quit smoking because you can get lung cancer anyways. The way you show a correlation is that you consistently find that the rates of SIDs deaths for infants exposed intrauterine to be higher than those who were not exposed. You know this (or you should).

quote:

Repeatedly, I have stated these women need to be forthcoming during prenatal care. That avoids the whole issue completely. They are being held back by feminists groups intent on keeping the terror of women for control and the main stream media who latch onto any story that may get them headlines.


Really? "Feminists" are responsible for women not wanting to get healthcare now? Are you really arguing that? As someone who does not label myself a feminist anyways, I find that assertion very freakin' funny



quote:

To date, Serotonin is the causual factor in SIDS. As you stated, the others may increase the risk. Many things can increase the risks.




Smoking being one of those things that increases the risk... nicotine is a drug, alcohol is a drug, cocaine is a drug... all have risks... smoking has severe risks.


You arguing about the fact that sleeping position causes more SIDs makes no sense, just because one thing causes a problem does not rule out others.

quote:

Is that enough information or do you need more?

That information did not show me anything I did not already know. I already knew sleeping position was key to preventing SIDs. That does not mean that a mother should continue to smoke knowing it increases the risk of SIDs.

Posting articles isn't going to change the facts that doing drugs of all sorts that pass the placenta barrier can be (and often is) very bad for babies. Nicotine is a drug that causes problems for the fetus after the all crucial viability stage. You have made the argument that if a woman does drugs after the age of viability and her baby dies she should be held accountable.... unless of course it is cigarette smoking, and then she gets a free pass.

If a woman smokes like a chimney, chain smoking through her entire pregnancy, does not vocalize one moment of caring about the damage she is doing, makes not one attempt to quit, and has a miscarriage, or a stillbirth, or a SIDs baby... why isn't she as responsible as any other craven drug user?

The double standards on this thread are pretty thick.

I will reiterate, this law as the potential to be used in ways that no one ever thought it could be. I do not trust prosecutors to use these laws fairly. I think that there will be abuses of these sorts of laws to control women. I can imagine many scenarios where this can happen, such as fathers or grandparents reporting pregnant mothers to officials based on their behavior being bad for their unborn children (maybe not staying on bed rest, or taking prenatal vitamins, or drinking coffee, or eating the wrong foods).

Unless there is something new added to this thread I am not going to respond anymore. I am not into repeating my same points... and it isn't going to stop the double standard here. Like I said, I think smoking moms are just as bad as any other addict, and I say this as someone who was HIGHLY addicted to nicotine in ways I was never addicted to any other substance. I LOVED my ciggies.... so I know what sort of hold that habit can have on you.... I also know what it does to the brain chemistry of the person who smokes, and no one can tell me it isn't doing that to the unborn, and that babies aren't born coming down off the nicotine[8|]







LafayetteLady -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/4/2011 10:31:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

From the OP:
"When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence."

Please note the bits in bold type in both quotes. One reason why I'm not bothering to respond to your questions is they are based on a false premise.



Your bolded part only means that the reporter didn't see the prosecution's full case. Funny how all the evididence in a case isn't released to the press, isn't it?

In the Kimbrough case, prior to the update, that same article was talking about how Kimbrough was shocked and denied every using drugs. Turned out to be quite untrue, didn't it?

A false premise is when you have all the evidence before you and still think what is happening is ok. Not the case here. It takes a lot more than a right-wing prosectutor to charge someone with murder in this country.

Gibbs will have every opportunity to present her defense. Who knows? She might get a jury full of people who believe a woman can do whatever she wants with her body regardless of being responsible for another life. And there is no question that after 30 weeks, it was another life.



LafayetteLady -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/4/2011 10:40:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

One thing I do not appreciate about American culture is this penchant for retribution disguised as "accountability".


Retribution would be a lynch mob. But it is nice to know you think that any time someone is charged with a crime you don't think they should be charged with, you think being charged is an act of retribution.

quote:


This discussion is not about the health of babies in my eyes, ...


Exactly where in the article in the OP did you read that these women were charged as a means of protecting the health of babies? Your inference is clouded by your tunnel vision. These women were charged with causing the death of their child. Yes, in the most technical sense, they endangered the health of their unborn children, but this is not about protecting the healht of all children. It is about these women being accountable for their behavior. Ignorance is not a defense. Something you should likely remember.


quote:


Laced throughout the posts on this thread is the point the feeling that someone maybe getting away with something, instead of thoughts about the future and what putting the actions of pregnant women up to legal scrutiny could mean. Like domiguy said, wanna look at what women eat, how much sleep they get, did they get enough exercise?


It is always best to listen to the class clown. Your comparison is like those who say to alleged "no limits" slaves, "so if he wanted to cut off your arm..." It is making an assumption that fits your personal agenda and can not be backed up by any factual evidence at all.

quote:


If we want women to become incubators the last few months they are pregnant, and a fair application of law, that means everything a woman does could come under the supervision of the legal system. I have no faith in our justice system to fairly apply the law, there are too many times overzealous prosecutors use laws to make their careers, and justice has little to do with their agenda in many cases


Your ignorance of how the legal system works is blaringly obvious. I'm grateful the liklihood of you ever serving on a jury is slim. You couldn't hide your prejudices if your life depended on it.



LafayetteLady -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/4/2011 11:24:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Smoking causes premature birth, low birth weight, and has been linked with SIDs.


This is why you don't deserve respect. I realize you went to school and studied and graduated. But you are asserting something in your own way to prove your point.

Smoking has been known to cause.... Not Smoking causes.

Just like a drug trial where one person develops a rash, and then that warning goes on the label.

Smoking DOES NOT ALWAYS cause these things. I can say this with 100% factual documentation since my son is alive (no SIDS), he was 2 weeks late (I could pin down fertilization within 72 hours), and weighed 9lbs. 14oz. (not low by anyone's standards)

Further Tazzy has not defended smoking. Saying that you smoked while pregant is not the same thing as defending it. We all know how utterly amazing you are being able to quit. <clap clap> There's the pat on the back you seem to need so bad.

quote:


You are talking about locking up someone for something that has not been shown to be risky, and you do not want to address the very real and provable risks that smoking presents?


Cocaine has not been shown to be risky? Really? Why don't you ask your OB/GYN about that while you have one on the phone? Bet he would be appalled by your view that it isn't dangerous to the baby.

quote:


which miscarriages that happen after the "all important age of viability" could be rightly attributed to cigarettes, want to throw those women in jail?


There is a study for everything, yet you have not produced one for this? Do you think that maybe no one did one or that you are (as usual) promoting your own agenda here yet again?

quote:


If we apply these laws fairly, smoking mothers should be doing time too.


You really don't understand the difference, do you? Living child v. dead child. I can't make it any simpler than that.

quote:


But the SIDs death mentioned in the OP you had no trouble attributing to an illegal substance?


Even the article pointed out there was no question Shuai's baby died of SIDS as a direct result of her ingesting rat poison. Again, your reading comprehension is in question. Rat poison, by the way is completely legal. It is also completely dangerous, kind of why they call it poison. In case you aren't getting the point, Shuai doesn't fit with your discussion about smoking during pregnancy v. doing cocaine.

Being totally facetious here, but I guess that by your argument over 14 pages, Shuai should be prosecuted for ingesting a legal substance?

quote:


People get lung cancer that do not smoke. There are other environmental causes, such as asbestos exposure.


I'm sure you were far to busy to actually learn this somewhere. Did you know that doctors can definitively tell if your lung cancer is caused by smoking or by asbestos? I didn't have to use Google to find this out. Mesothelioma is not caused by smoking. My father died of lung cancer and he didn't smoke. Wasn't caused by second hand smoke either. The doctors were very sure about this.

quote:


If a woman smokes like a chimney, chain smoking through her entire pregnancy, does not vocalize one moment of caring about the damage she is doing, makes not one attempt to quit, and has a miscarriage, or a stillbirth, or a SIDs baby... why isn't she as responsible as any other craven drug user?


Did anyone ever once say that she isn't? Would Gibbs be on trial if she used cocaine all through her trial and delivered a healthy baby? Of course not. She is on trial because her actions appear to have caused the death of her child. If a woman smoked like a chimney and the prosecutors got wind of it, they would make a case as well. You are making a statement that you can't prove is either true or untrue trying to make your point. You are pissed because everyone knows you are talking out of your ass.

quote:


I can imagine many scenarios where this can happen...


Herein lies the problem. The law isn't based on your (or anyone else's imagination). When you reconcile yourself to that fact, you might start to make some sense.




tweakabelle -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/4/2011 11:40:07 PM)

For anyone interested in learning about alternative approaches to issues of maternity, pregnancy and drug taking, here are some links to relevant services operating here in Sydney. These services combine to offer a comprehensive application of the community health model I referred to in an earlier post, as a practical alternative to punishment and legal responses to this issue.

These types of services could be copied/adapted anywhere there is central or State funding of health services. In countries such as the US, where different funding models are adopted, organisation and funding could be quite different.

Leichardt Women's Community Health Centre is one of many suburban health centres that would be one port of call for women in that area with issues around children or drug taking (among many other health and women's issues).

The Kirketon Road Centre is a 'frontline' health service located in the middle of the 'red-light' district, that targets people whose high-risk behaviours endangers them in relation to HIV/AIDS.

The Sex Worker's Outreach Project deals mainly with issues around sex work, offering support, education advice, counselling etc to that community.

The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre is a licensed 'shooting gallery' for IV drug users. It offers clean safe environment for using, support education and referral (to detox/rehabs) for IV drug users.

National Users and Aids Association is a Health Dept fundded community organisation to represent the needs of IV-drug-users, supply education support counselling etc to that community.

There is also a wide range of detox and rehab facilities employing a wide range of treatment models for recovery.

Any or all of these services would supply support education advice counselling to pregnant women who take drugs with a primary focus on health of mother and baby. Where possible fully qualified experienced workers are drawn from the community the service caters to. This is far from perfect - there are the inevitable funding issues, problems of demand exceeding service delivery and so on that most health services seem to face on a day-to-day basis. However, to me, it's a million times better than a prison cell.

To me this is a far more humane approach, one that seeks to act in the best interests of all concerned. I hope that people find these links useful.




LafayetteLady -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/4/2011 11:53:18 PM)

The reality is that more than 4 million babies are born in the US every year. How many die due to the mother's behavior during pregancy? I was unable to find any statistics on this, but I would say that it is not even 1%. That is a good thing. It means that 3,090,000 babies are not dying. Is ten thousand babies (1% of 4M) dying from a woman's behavior during pregnancy too many? Yes. Does that qualify as an epidemic. Certainly not.

What *some* seem to miss here is that this is not about birth defects. It is not about smoking or even drinking. It is about 3 women whose behavior caused the death of the children they were carrying. Three out of more than 4 million.

Help was available to all of these women if they asked for it. They didn't. Do we know how help might have changed the outcome? Nope. Monday morning quarterbacking serves no purpose. There is no actual evidence that charging or even convicting these women will send the others underground.

How many are there? Only information I could find came from the March of Dimes. According to their records, 4% of pregnant women are using illicit drugs. Again, 40,000 women putting their unborn babies at risk is too many, but still not an epidemic. Minnesota, South Dakota and Wisconsin DO have laws in place forcing pregnant drug users into treatment. While that may be a social/health policy, it is also a law. Should there not be a law if the women refuse to comply?

The biggest problem with enacting social/health policies (and make no mistake, those policies are law), is that women need to be honest about their activities. Hypothetically, if every state enacted forced treatment programs, what about women who still weren't honest about their use? At some point, the courts need to step in. At some point, a person has to be accountable for their actions.

Accountability and retribution are not the same thing by a long shot. The US has a long history of holding people responsible for their actions. We call them laws. The law dictates that if you deal drugs, you risk incarceration. If you drive drunk, you lose your license. If you deliberately engage in activities that cause the death of another human being, you are charged with murder. Drug dealers (although not enough) have been charged with conspiracy for providing drugs that killed the user.

Going over the top and saying that the government is going to step in and monitor what a woman eats, where she works, etc. are nothing more than scare tactics to promote the concept that women will once again be second class citizens.

The bottom line is that when a woman becomes pregant, she IS an incubator for that unborn child. It does not translate into her not having the right to abortion, but it does translate into a moral and ethical obligation to act responsibly if you choose to have that child.

I'm all for offering all the help we can to women who face addictions, or mental health issues during their pregnancy. I think we should offer help to every person with those issues. But when they don't seek help and damage others with their actions, I don't think they deserve a pass.

For me there is no debate. There is no convincing people whose reading comprehension or their own personal agenda prevents them from understanding facts. There is no convincing someone about the difference between a living child and a dead child when they want to talk about things other than the OP and insist they are the same thing. There is no point in trying to explain the law to someone who doesn't care what the law says. Essentially there is no educating the ignorant.



tweakabelle -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/4/2011 11:53:53 PM)

quote:

Repeatedly, I have stated these women need to be forthcoming during prenatal care. That avoids the whole issue completely. They are being held back by feminists groups intent on keeping the terror of women for control and the main stream media who latch onto any story that may get them headlines.


Tazzy I don't want to believe you meant to write this. Are you sure you want to stand by the bolded part?

I don't use the 'feminist' label to describe myself - though that's more a distaste for labels than anything else. But I'm unable to see any merit in this claim - it flies in the face of history. Feminism has helped, and continues to help bring about great advances in women's health care services and in the lives of hundreds of millions of women. While feminism is far from flawless, I think that's undeniable.

I'm sure there are better ways of saying what you want to say.



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/4/2011 11:56:52 PM)

Tweak, I posted such a site. I even showed what I put into google to get to that site, and it was the first one on the list.


For example...

This is what I typed in to yahoo search...

will i go to jail if i am pregnant and using drugs

The first site?

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/05/24/prosecuting-pregnant-drug-addicted-mothers/

It speaks about South Carolina's laws, and the conviction of Regina McKnight. Guess what it doesnt include.

This...

http://www.southcarolinacriminaldefenseblog.com/2008/05/regina_mcknights_case_overturn_1.html

Her conviction was overturned, and SC had to cease the "secret" drug testing of mothers.

Say I was 19 and a coke user. I wanted information because my friend told me if I told anyone, I could go to jail. That first link cinches it... even though it doesnt tell the full story.

They dont talk about the treatment centers available, both out patient and residential.

http://texas.drugrehab101.com/service_Pregnant-postpartum-women.html

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3750106

Now, considering that site has been updated as recently as today, why would they not include the update about Regina?



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/5/2011 12:15:47 AM)

quote:

The bottom line is that when a woman becomes pregant, she IS an incubator for that unborn child. It does not translate into her not having the right to abortion, but it does translate into a moral and ethical obligation to act responsibly if you choose to have that child.

I'm all for offering all the help we can to women who face addictions, or mental health issues during their pregnancy. I think we should offer help to every person with those issues. But when they don't seek help and damage others with their actions, I don't think they deserve a pass.

For me there is no debate. There is no convincing people whose reading comprehension or their own personal agenda prevents them from understanding facts. There is no convincing someone about the difference between a living child and a dead child when they want to talk about things other than the OP and insist they are the same thing. There is no point in trying to explain the law to someone who doesn't care what the law says. Essentially there is no educating the ignorant.


[sm=applause.gif]



tweakabelle -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/5/2011 12:34:56 AM)

quote:

LaFayetteLady
For me there is no debate. There is no convincing people whose reading comprehension or their own personal agenda prevents them from understanding facts. There is no convincing someone about the difference between a living child and a dead child when they want to talk about things other than the OP and insist they are the same thing. There is no point in trying to explain the law to someone who doesn't care what the law says. Essentially there is no educating the ignorant.


You might be surprised that I agree with most of what you are saying here. I admit I was surprised to see you describe yourself in such terms.

The OP states in relation to Ms Gibbs: " there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death" and, in relation to Ms Kimbrough; "Six months later [after the miscarriage] Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with ''chemical endangerment'' of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy - a claim she has denied."

Yet, in your post, you claim: "It is about 3 women whose behavior caused the death of the children they were carrying."

There is nothing in the OP to suggest that the women's behaviour "caused" the death of their foetuses. Yet here you have explicitly accused them of causing the deaths of their foetuses. And convicted them too - at least in your own mind.

So yes, as you say: "There is no convincing people whose reading comprehension or their own personal agenda prevents them from understanding facts". Understanding facts is different to inventing facts.

All this must be why you advise us: "For me there is no debate".

In this instance I'm happy to take your word for it. You couldn't have been clearer about why it's pointless to try to discuss this matter rationally with you.



tweakabelle -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/5/2011 12:46:57 AM)

quote:

Now, considering that site has been updated as recently as today, why would they not include the update about Regina?


I have no idea how those people manage their website. Nor for that matter do you. It is a matter of omission of a relevant fact in a single story on a single website. And we have no idea about the reasons for the omission.

But to go from that single instance of omission to this:" They are being held back by feminists groups intent on keeping the terror of women for control" is an astronomical leap by anyone's standards.

Surely you can see that.



tazzygirl -> RE: pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges (7/5/2011 6:22:11 AM)

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7hXdDRNOp2sAT65XNyoA?p=will+i+go+to+jail+if+i+am+pregnant+and+using+drugs&ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=1&xa=MfrzexbTHayXAyfgV6CELQ--,1309957981

Then show me one I missed, tweak



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.140625