Court rules moms can bar dads from delivery room

jdluvr06

That seems wrong to me. Shouldn't that be something that the parents talk about and decide before delivery? My sister and BIL talked about and decided that if something went wrong and came down to her or the baby to save the baby but that was a decision they made together (honestly I think that was more to sister, my BIL didn't seem to happy with that decision)

HisGirlFriday13

Same rules apply. Let's say you're in hospital, giving birth, and you flat-line. Shocking you back to life will kill the baby -- they have to shock you back to life. The action (saving your life) has a side effect (killing the baby). But you're not trying to kill the baby, it's happening as a side effect of life-saving treatment for the mother. 

The Irish Council of Catholic Bishops issued this statement: 

“Whereas abortion is the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn baby and is gravely immoral in all circumstances, this is different from medical treatments which do not directly and intentionally seek to end the life of the unborn baby,” the bishops said in their statement."

pumpkinsandturkeys

shrekspeare said:

I wasn't thinking so much along the ectopic pregnancy lines. I was thinking it more was directed to if something happened during birth and they had to decide.

HisGirl is correct -- in any case, if the baby has yet to be physically born and they must decide between one or the other, the Church sides on saving the mother. While they believe that life begins at conception, being born into the world is slightly different.

chibiyui

mysticl said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

Everyone raises good questions, but I don't think there are answers to some of them.

Ex.: What happens if something happens to the mother, and the doctors' choices are save the mother or save the baby? The father is the next of kin (and next to make a legal decision) for the baby, but might not be for the mother. The mother might not have the person who's authorised to make that decision for her with her at hospital. Then what?

As far as barring him from the room, sure -- but this mother wanted to bar the father from seeing the baby for the first 24 hours. How is that fair?

A friend of mine gave birth in a Catholic hospital and was told that policy was to let her die if it came down to a choice.  

This is why FI and I will not willingly go to a Catholic hospital.

NYCBruin

mysticl said:

NYCBruin said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

@Jennycolada -- apparently not. The court said in its ruling that the issue had never been litigated before, although I wonder if it was just the aspect of fathers being barred that hadn't been litigated.

I imagine it was just the fathers being barred aspect.  Considering not too ago, fathers weren't even allowed in delivery rooms (ever), this isn't surprising. 

You have to figure that this is something that would have to be started in advance.  I've seen a hospital ban a father from the delivery room at the mother's request.  If he had tried to fight it in court at that point the baby probably would have been born by the time he found a lawyer and it went to court.  

Agreed.  I was just explaining why this would have been the first case of this type.  Less than 50 years ago fathers couldn't be in the delivery room if they wanted to, meaning this type of case wouldn't have existed 50 years ago.  My point was that because of this, it isn't surprising that there was no legal precedent.

sarahufl

chibiyui said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

Everyone raises good questions, but I don't think there are answers to some of them.

Ex.: What happens if something happens to the mother, and the doctors' choices are save the mother or save the baby? The father is the next of kin (and next to make a legal decision) for the baby, but might not be for the mother. The mother might not have the person who's authorised to make that decision for her with her at hospital. Then what?

As far as barring him from the room, sure -- but this mother wanted to bar the father from seeing the baby for the first 24 hours. How is that fair?

A friend of mine gave birth in a Catholic hospital and was told that policy was to let her die if it came down to a choice.  

This is why FI and I will not willingly go to a Catholic hospital.

This may be a case of the specific hospital, and not the Catholic church.

mysticl

HobokenBride2012 said:

shrekspeare said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

@mysticl -- FWIW, that is not a correct statement of Church doctrine. The Church's official position is to save the mother's life, even if it's at the expense of the child.

That seems odd for the Catholic Church. Can you explain the reasoning behind that?

I don't know about the official position of the church but things like this are often part of a birth plan if the mother chooses to write one. It lays out the mothers wishes about everything from music in the room to emergency situations. Although it may not be typical my OB advised me to talk to my husband about it. I told him to save him, not me.

A birth plan is not a legal document.  It is a list of a mother's wishes.  If you go to a site called myobsaidwhat.com you will find a bunch of stories about doctors and nurses blatantly ignoring the birth plan.  

When the decision was made that I would be having an urgent c-section I told my husband to chose the baby over me and told him how to get in touch my father's family to inform them of my death.  We had already had the discussion about life support and organ donation.  

photokitty

phira said:

I actually do not support double homicide when a pregnant person is murdered, soooooo *shrug* Not that I think it's OKAY, and I'm not going to police how people mourn in those cases, but under the law, I see it as a single event. I know that 1) not everyone agrees with me, and 2) it IS two murders under the law in many jurisdictions. I just don't think it should be the law.

I think intent should be considered. If you kill the woman bc she is pregnant, then it should be a double homicide. If you break into a house randomly and kill someone and they happen to be pregnant I don't think it should be double. 

I'm with the head exploding Cinderella gif…I can't wrap my head around all this.

jdluvr06

phira said:

I actually do not support double homicide when a pregnant person is murdered, soooooo *shrug* Not that I think it's OKAY, and I'm not going to police how people mourn in those cases, but under the law, I see it as a single event. I know that 1) not everyone agrees with me, and 2) it IS two murders under the law in many jurisdictions. I just don't think it should be the law.

I think intent should be considered. If you kill the woman bc she is pregnant, then it should be a double homicide. If you break into a house randomly and kill someone and they happen to be pregnant I don't think it should be double. 

I'm with the head exploding Cinderella gif…I can't wrap my head around all this.

The problem is that you can't always prove intent. Personally I think they should be charged with a double homicide but that is because I think that if a person murders someone then should be charged with everything they legally can be.

jdluvr06

phira said:

I actually do not support double homicide when a pregnant person is murdered, soooooo *shrug* Not that I think it's OKAY, and I'm not going to police how people mourn in those cases, but under the law, I see it as a single event. I know that 1) not everyone agrees with me, and 2) it IS two murders under the law in many jurisdictions. I just don't think it should be the law.

I think intent should be considered. If you kill the woman bc she is pregnant, then it should be a double homicide. If you break into a house randomly and kill someone and they happen to be pregnant I don't think it should be double. 

I'm with the head exploding Cinderella gif…I can't wrap my head around all this.

The problem is that you can't always prove intent. Personally I think they should be charged with a double homicide but that is because I think that if a person murders someone then should be charged with everything they legally can be.

NYCBruin

jdluvr06 said:

phira said:

I actually do not support double homicide when a pregnant person is murdered, soooooo *shrug* Not that I think it's OKAY, and I'm not going to police how people mourn in those cases, but under the law, I see it as a single event. I know that 1) not everyone agrees with me, and 2) it IS two murders under the law in many jurisdictions. I just don't think it should be the law.

I think intent should be considered. If you kill the woman bc she is pregnant, then it should be a double homicide. If you break into a house randomly and kill someone and they happen to be pregnant I don't think it should be double. 

I'm with the head exploding Cinderella gif…I can't wrap my head around all this.

The problem is that you can't always prove intent. Personally I think they should be charged with a double homicide but that is because I think that if a person murders someone then should be charged with everything they legally can be.

Not to be nitpicky, but a conviction of murder (which is just one type of homicide) requires proof of intent (or some other mental state element like depraved indifference to human life with a limited exception for if you've killed someone while committing a felony).

chibiyui

sarahufl said:

chibiyui said:

mysticl said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

Everyone raises good questions, but I don't think there are answers to some of them.

Ex.: What happens if something happens to the mother, and the doctors' choices are save the mother or save the baby? The father is the next of kin (and next to make a legal decision) for the baby, but might not be for the mother. The mother might not have the person who's authorised to make that decision for her with her at hospital. Then what?

As far as barring him from the room, sure -- but this mother wanted to bar the father from seeing the baby for the first 24 hours. How is that fair?

A friend of mine gave birth in a Catholic hospital and was told that policy was to let her die if it came down to a choice.  

This is why FI and I will not willingly go to a Catholic hospital.

This may be a case of the specific hospital, and not the Catholic church.


Yeah, I didn't have that part of the discussion loaded when I replied. I had always thought it came from higher up, not indiviual hosptials. But I also never properly researched either. I assumed, and we all know what that makes me

LizM61409

I'm an ob/gyn resident. I'm no legal expert, but I've delivered a LOT of babies and know what my hospital's policies are. 

1. Women get to decide who sees their vagina and who doesn't. End of discussion. Mom is the patient. Everyone in the labor room with her needs to be there with her permission. (Side note: could you imagine THAT slippery slope if we said "sorry, you need to expose yourself to this man against your will"??)

2. In a hypothetical save mom or save baby scenario: we'd save mom. Every. Single. Time.  If it gets to the point of CPR we start a stat c-section within 5 minutes of the resuscitation- the reason being that a pregnant uterus allows very little blood return to the heart while laying flat, and even less with the poor cardiac output provided by CPR. The c-section is to save mom. Potentially saving baby is a bonus.

3. In L&D situations, mom is the patient. Her next of kin makes decisions in the event she is unable to. If she is married (and doesn't have a different power of attorney) her husband would be the default decision-maker. If unmarried I think it's an adult child, then a parent, then a sibling, etc etc. There is no place for her one-night-stand from 40 weeks ago (unless of course she has designated him as her medical power of attorney).

4. I'm not a pediatrician, but my understanding is that while baby is in the hospital all medical decisions are made by mom. There's no birth certificate yet. There's no legal document that says mom's estranged whatever has any authority to make decisions. I know our policy for circumcision consents is that mom has to sign if they want it done, not dad.

5. Regarding whether this estranged father would be able to visit the infant- I'm not sure how that works. Our policy is that 2 people get a special wristband to be able to see the baby or get it from the nursery, but of course more people than that can see baby if mom's okay with them all coming into her room. I don't know what would happen legally if some guy who claims to be the father wants to see baby but mom doesn't want him to. Remember for an unmarried mother there's NO legal documentation as to who the father is in the first few days after birth, before the birth certificate is filed and signed.

mysticl

LizM61409 said:

I'm an ob/gyn resident. I'm no legal expert, but I've delivered a LOT of babies and know what my hospital's policies are. 

1. Women get to decide who sees their vagina and who doesn't. End of discussion. Mom is the patient. Everyone in the labor room with her needs to be there with her permission. (Side note: could you imagine THAT slippery slope if we said "sorry, you need to expose yourself to this man against your will"??)

2. In a hypothetical save mom or save baby scenario: we'd save mom. Every. Single. Time.  If it gets to the point of CPR we start a stat c-section within 5 minutes of the resuscitation- the reason being that a pregnant uterus allows very little blood return to the heart while laying flat, and even less with the poor cardiac output provided by CPR. The c-section is to save mom. Potentially saving baby is a bonus.

3. In L&D situations, mom is the patient. Her next of kin makes decisions in the event she is unable to. If she is married (and doesn't have a different power of attorney) her husband would be the default decision-maker. If unmarried I think it's an adult child, then a parent, then a sibling, etc etc. There is no place for her one-night-stand from 40 weeks ago (unless of course she has designated him as her medical power of attorney).

4. I'm not a pediatrician, but my understanding is that while baby is in the hospital all medical decisions are made by mom. There's no birth certificate yet. There's no legal document that says mom's estranged whatever has any authority to make decisions. I know our policy for circumcision consents is that mom has to sign if they want it done, not dad.

5. Regarding whether this estranged father would be able to visit the infant- I'm not sure how that works. Our policy is that 2 people get a special wristband to be able to see the baby or get it from the nursery, but of course more people than that can see baby if mom's okay with them all coming into her room. I don't know what would happen legally if some guy who claims to be the father wants to see baby but mom doesn't want him to. Remember for an unmarried mother there's NO legal documentation as to who the father is in the first few days after birth, before the birth certificate is filed and signed.

I had to consent to anything done to our son while we were still in the hospital.  All questions regarding his care were directed towards me.  I assume they would have turned to my husband if I had been incapacitated and a decision needed to be made.  

LizM61409

Oh and I thought of one other thing. Disclosing mom's medical information (including the fact that she's in labor or whatever else is going on) without her permission is a violation of HIPAA, which is the federal medical information privacy law and is taken VERY seriously.

HisGirlFriday13

Thanks for adding that insight! I'm still really interested in this law. I mean, apparently the mom and dad both admitted to being the parents -- mom didn't deny that dad was dad -- she just wanted to say, 'No, you can't see the baby,' and that seems like not really her decision to make. 

Yeah, you're the mom, but he's the dad, and you made a baby with this dude, and he's going to be in your life until one of you dies now, because of this baby. You don't have the right to bar him from the kid's hospital room -- he's still the effing dad.

mysticl

HisGirlFriday13 said:

Thanks for adding that insight! I'm still really interested in this law. I mean, apparently the mom and dad both admitted to being the parents -- mom didn't deny that dad was dad -- she just wanted to say, 'No, you can't see the baby,' and that seems like not really her decision to make. 

Yeah, you're the mom, but he's the dad, and you made a baby with this dude, and he's going to be in your life until one of you dies now, because of this baby. You don't have the right to bar him from the kid's hospital room -- he's still the effing dad.

That may also be the mother's hospital room.  It is not uncommon for the baby to "room in" with the mom.  This helps promote bonding and makes breastfeeding easier.  It also cuts down on the possibility of babies being switched.  In fact some hospitals are doing away with putting babies in the nursery at all, unless there  is a medical reason the baby cannot be in the mother's room.   The hospital I gave birth in doesn't even have a nursery.   

singinchick13

Yes, in most cases it would be the same room as the mother and she is technically still admitted as a patient. Because of this she has the right to deny access to her and baby's room by anyone. Remember, the mother is recovering as well as learning to care for her new baby and someone she is not close to may not be welcome in such a situation, nor should they be. I went through this exact scenario recently and I could not imagine anyone but FI and medical professionals observing me in that state. Why should I have to interact with anyone I don't want to in such a vulnerable state? Also, unless medically necessary, the baby would not be taken away from the mother at this time for any reason, so she has every right to eliminate access from anyone she wants to.