Pregnancy and prenatal care....

[d_squared431 0]

We had a women come into the office who is about 5-6 months pregnant and has not had any prenatal care. This patient admits to smoking 1-2 pks a day, smoking pot and having a few drinks a week. Her last pap smear was 12 yrs ago after she had her last child. By the way this patient does have medical insurance , great medical insurance.

So my question is, do you feel that a pregnant women who does not obtain prenatal care should have charges of neglect placed against her?

TPM Sister#130ONTIG#1
I love vodka.I love vodka cause it rhymes with Tuaca~LisaH
You having a clean thought is like billyvance having a clean post.iluvtofly

[billvon 3,176]

>do you feel that a pregnant women who does not obtain prenatal
>care should have charges of neglect placed against her?

No. Being an idiot is not a crime. It's unfortunate for both the mother and the child, though.

[Gary73 10]

Unfortunately we're not yet mature enough as a society to put the welfare of an unborn child ahead of the convenience of the mother. Once we acknowledge that a mother has even greater obligations regarding her child than a Tandem Instructor has regarding his/her student, the problem won't even come up anymore.

Side note: Last I heard, in France the national healthcare system actually pays pregnant women to get prenatal care. That saves money in the long run by reducing complications for both mother and child. Too bad we're not as smart as the French.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[kbordson 8]

Quote

So my question is, do you feel that a pregnant women who does not obtain prenatal care should have charges of neglect placed against her?

No.

Medical care should be a willing choice that is made on the part of the patient. If you are a competent adult, you should not HAVE TO see anyone. Regardless of if he/she has insurance or if "the government is paying for it." The patient should still have complete autonomy of his/her health and well being. That is actually one of my (many) concerns with making health care coverage "mandatory" - do those organizations then have the "right" to demand that someone goes to the doctor.

In some ways it would be good for the people. While in Peru (where they have Universal coverage), one of the ladies that I saw had cervical cancer. That is not a disease that happens over night... it had been YEARS since this woman had been to a doctor. I decided not to ask why she hadn't gone, because I didn't want her to blame herself. But... had she gone regularly, it should have been caught prior to becoming a cancer. It's much easier and cheaper to treat "dysplasia" than it is to try to treat cancer... so in that situation, would it have been "good" to have mandated appointments?

Another thing to consider is health and culture. Some people don't truly consider pregnancy a "sickness" and wonder why we would go to a doctor for a healthy cycle of life.



But we should find out what the barriers are for her for the last 12 years. If you had the opportunity to build a trusting relationship with her, I bet that you would find a history of rape or abuse in her past. And her way of coping with that situation is to avoid feeling "violated" again. Offering help to fix that barrier is what she needs... not a visit from the cops.


(I would flag her chart as high risk though... "late prenatal care", "substance use", and probably "advancing maternal age" - guessing as her last child was 12 years ago)

[pirana 0]

No.

It is bad all around that she has decided not to get that care; but it is worse to remove the freedom to choose.

Prenatal care should be covered with no out of pocket, as should all reasonably applied preventive care, so that there is no cost issue. (Though I suspect someone smoking 2 packs a day doesn't have a cost issue).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[birdshit 0]

No and it's silly that you would even ask.

Who are you, the vagina nazi? My mom smoked cigarettes and pot and drank when she was pregnant with me and I turned out fine (high IQ, high income, never sick, strong bones, etc)..

Its crap like this that makes me want to move out of the states. People wanting to file charges against people for every conceivable bullshit excuse. It makes me sick.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

No and it's silly that you would even ask.

Who are you, the vagina nazi? My mom smoked cigarettes and pot and drank when she was pregnant with me and I turned out fine (high IQ, high income, never sick, strong bones, etc)..

Its crap like this that makes me want to move out of the states. People wanting to file charges against people for every conceivable bullshit excuse. It makes me sick.

Easy Tiger...

I understand why she would ask that. She cares for that baby. She's thinking of the baby.

Anecdotal evidence aside, smoking and excessive drinking are potentially harmful to fetuses.

The urge to protect the "innocent" is strong.


Edited: Agree that the mother should NOT be prosecuted. Period.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[d_squared431 0]

Quote

No and it's silly that you would even ask.

Who are you, the vagina nazi? My mom smoked cigarettes and pot and drank when she was pregnant with me and I turned out fine (high IQ, high income, never sick, strong bones, etc)..

Its crap like this that makes me want to move out of the states. People wanting to file charges against people for every conceivable bullshit excuse. It makes me sick.

Here is my reasoning behind the question. I took custody of my half brother and then adopted him. When his biological mother was pregnant she drank, used meth, and smoked. He went thru hell the first three yrs of his life left at random places for days, they lived in a car, and more I am not willing to share with dz.com.

Back to my OP . I was looking at this as if a pregnant woman who has not taken the time to care for herself by not getting routine paps/physicals and then not seeing a doctor since she found out she was pregnant. She could be subjecting this child to a life of who knows what health issues. Maybe what kbordson pointed out is the situation who knows. I was not even thinking in terms of past events with the mother. I was only thinking of that unborn child and future health issues and or neglect.

TPM Sister#130ONTIG#1
I love vodka.I love vodka cause it rhymes with Tuaca~LisaH
You having a clean thought is like billyvance having a clean post.iluvtofly

[Gary73 10]

Deedy,
Haven't you heard? Children aren't human beings until they're born. Before that they're property, without even the rights that we grant to pets or cattle. Remember: convenience is always more, well, convenient than responsibility.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[billvon 3,176]

>Haven't you heard? Children aren't human beings until they're born. Before
>that they're property, without even the rights that we grant to pets or cattle.

Bzzt! Completely incorrect. But I bet that sort of rhetoric really gets the lunatics riled up, eh?

[Gary73 10]

Quote

>Haven't you heard? Children aren't human beings until they're born. Before
>that they're property, without even the rights that we grant to pets or cattle.

Bzzt! Completely incorrect. But I bet that sort of rhetoric really gets the lunatics riled up, eh?

It's not rhetoric. If a mother forced her one-week-old child to consume alcohol and other drugs, she'd be locked up and the child would be taken away. Why do we deny an unborn child the protections that we demand for born children? Birth is a surprisingly unimportant event in the development of a child. Kids born a month early don't immediately take on the physical and mental characteristice of full-term babies. With proper care, they develop just as they would in the womb, and take on those characteristics in about a month. Likewise, kids who are born late don't just press pause at the nine-month point; they continue to develop both physically and mentally the whole time. Birth isn't like fertilization, implantation, or even the beginning of the formation of the heart or brain. It's just a shortening of the supply chain.

So no, my comment wasn't rhetorical, just sarcastic. Mothers are allowed to abuse, neglect, and even kill their unborn children, right up to some point which is defined legally, not biologically.

But don't worry: I don't think it will help to imprison pre-natally abusive mothers. It'll probably just drive them even farther from proper care for their children. So sad. So very sad.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[pirana 0]

Quote

Anecdotal evidence aside, smoking and excessive drinking are potentially harmful to fetuses.

No potentially about it; they are harmful. The correlation is strong and positive. It may not be 100%; but it goes way beyond potential.

Similar to smoking. A smoker can dodge the cancer bullet; but to deny the correlation is to be in denial.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 3,176]

>It's not rhetoric.

Yes, it is; it's meaningless rhetoric. Try killing a woman who is nine months pregnant, and see if the law considers the fetus to have less rights than cattle.

>Why do we deny an unborn child the protections that we demand for
>born children?

Because it's her child, not yours.

>Mothers are allowed to abuse, neglect, and even kill their unborn children,
>right up to some point which is defined legally, not biologically.

It's defined as both; the Supreme Court was quite clear that the trimester divisions they listed were based on biology, not ideology.

When an egg is first fertilized, it has no rights. Which is as it should be; it probably won't even become a person. After it implants and begins to grow it gains more and more rights up until the point it is born. At that point it STILL does not have all the rights an adult has; see if a 2 year old can buy a beer or vote. As time goes on it gradually gains more rights until the person is 21, at which point they have all the rights any adult has.

That's the way it's always been, and it makes sense. 2 year olds should not be able to buy beer. And if a mother wants to spank a 2 year old because he ran into the freeway, she should be able to without some busybody saying "well, I would have done it differently! Arrest her."

[Gary73 10]

Rhetoric: The use of exaggeration or display in language. (Random House Dictionary)

Bill,
The discussion was about a mother's right to abuse her unborn child by denying medical care and by forcing him/her to ingest alcohol and other drugs, not about violence done by another person. I stated that unborn children have no rights. You stated that only the mother is allowed to determine what is good for her unborn child. Sounds like you're agreeing with me.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan