Absolutely wild to read. The fact that the hospital has tablets to facilate zoom hearings?? FORCING someone to have a hearing when they have other things to worry about? I'm so sorry for that the state interfered like this.
"Florida courts don’t require lawyers for pregnant women in hearings about their medical decisions and the hospital didn’t provide an advocate, so Doyley had to go it alone" - again, WILD.
This case was badly mishandled, but I can see why the hospital has tablets for emergency zoom hearings. For example if parents refuse life saving treatment for their child (like Jehovah's witnesses refusing transfusion) the hospital needs to take action immediately.
Even in cases like this, as horrific as it is - if this woman didn't have a tablet/laptop or access to it while in hospital, could these ghouls penalize her for not going up or go ahead without her being represented at all?
It's not the hospital having the tech that sucks it's the literally every other part of this. It is reprehensible and disgusting to force any human to go through this, and extreme stress is not healthy for a pregnant woman or her fetus. Sometimes it's unavoidable by circumstance, but this is 100% avoidable and completely unnecessary.
My first response was filled with anger, you make a fair point! I don't live in the US so I didn't think of this scenario. In the case of this pregnant woman, it feels soooo weird this is so normalised, getting a tablet with a Zoom with like 6 people you don't know
I just meant i disagree that there should ever a precedent for a patient needing to be on a zoom call mid-procedure. If the lawmakers anticipate situations like this and write the laws to be very clear, we avoid this kind of shenanigans. The hospital can proceed to do their jobs, the patient can choose to leave or submit to the law, etc.
This story makes me wildly uncomfortable and I’m neither American nor capable of giving birth. In what world can the state order you to be stabbed in the stomach with you having no means or opportunity to argue against them?
Right? I am absolutely infuriated just reading this. I was on all fours most of the time during labour. That zoom call would have had a great view of my ass.
This woman's poise during a dystopian and frankly evil situation is admirable. I feel for her.
Summary for those who haven't read: this woman was in labor at a hospital and essentially forced to undergo a C-section (major abdominal surgery) against her will. The hospital attempted to force this woman to have a C-section (believing it was best for the unborn child) and then wheeled a tablet into the room to force her to attend a Zoom court hearing with an actual judge, wearing only a hospital gown.
This woman already had 3 children, and the last time she had a C-section, she nearly bled to death and required hospitalization for a week. She only wanted to attempt vaginal birth and her understanding was that the chance of something going wrong was less than 2%. She feared that having another C-section would gravely endanger her life and leave her children without a mother, but all of this was dismissed.
There are also horrible racial dynamics here, as the woman in question is black, and nearly everyone on the Zoom call denying her jurisdiction over her own body was white. And in general it's a prime example of a woman being treated like an incubator, whose rights are superseded by that of her unborn child.
Disgusting abuse of power. Legislators have no business inside our bodies and cases like these (and many others) demonstrate this. The inherent misogyny in these laws and the people who carry them out is revolting to consider and even more so for the folks forced to endure the enaction of the laws on their bodies.
I had a C-section with no complications for my first child. For my second child, I was not only given the choice of a VBAC or C-section, but I was actually encouraged to do a VBAC because the risk for uterine rupture was that low 2%! I live in South Carolina, another red, conservative state.
What's the difference between Doyley and I? I'm a white woman, and she is a black woman. It's absolutely ridiculous that it got to the point of a court hearing for her.
(There are other differences, of course, but I truly feel race played a big part in her case.)
Also she had three prior c sections and the risk goes up each time. She also may have other complications (obesity, diabetes high blood pressure).
Reading the article it never states she had prenatal care. Shouldn’t her personal ob be referenced? There is nothing about a prior discussion of a trial of labor.
She may have higher risk factors, but this kind of high stress situation itself is not a healthy situation to place a very pregnant woman in. Extreme stress isn't great either, and while it's sometimes unavoidable...this is.
High risk and complications should be discussed with the woman (or patient) and between them and their physician. Not court. Criminalizing that is a farce, the negative impact on not only her and her fetus and family but also every other pregnant or possibly pregnant in the future woman who sees this and becomes terrified to seek medical care for pregnancy or to give birth in a hospital is immense.
It's a fucking laugh for this state to talk about high risk pregnancy and drag a heavily pregnant woman into court over her medical decisions.
My deduction is that she did not actually have a physician. Nowhere in either article did it mention anything about her discussing a vbac with her doctor or that she had a doctor at all. Only that she had a birth plan.
I don't think you would find many physicians willing to do a vbac3. It get more dangerous each time. The hospital had allowed her to labor for 24 hours before the went to ipad court.
I don't think this was a criminal case. More of a guardian situation.
In the end the baby ended up in the nicu.It could have been worse. They both could have been dead. I don't like court getting involved in medical decisions, but I dont like unnecessarily dead babies either.
By physician I meant the physicians overseeing her stay in the labour ward.
Unless Florida standards have gotten SO low they don't have physicians doing major surgery she'd be seeing a gynaecologist and they'd oversee her care, along with nurses and other staff.
The issue here is that this is legal and increasingly common because of anti-abortion laws - even in the article: "“Everybody was very concerned about the baby’s welfare,” Jenny Van Ravestein, director of women’s services at the hospital, said during the hearing.
No one actually came back and TALKED to the mother! She said she wanted to try a vaginal delivery, they said they didn't want to but relented or dropped it, and then told her she was being taken to court - that's insane and not in any way recommended medical practice.
I'm a med student. This is not typical and trying to justify it is what the US gov is trying to do, wrongly. We have training in how to handle this, there are discussions physicians can have with a patient about risk and making a decision about how long to try before moving to a c-section and the dangers involved, addressing fears and concerns, etc, and returning to indicate emergency surgery is now necessary (which is what ended up happening anyway - so why bother with court, there was no conclusion because she ended up requiring surgery before the result). Legally being required to take them to COURT is crazy.
And it will keep women from getting prenatal care and going to a hospital for delivery. That kills women and babies. That's well documented.
Also nowhere in the article does it state or even imply she had no prenatal care? Where are you pulling that from? .
She had a birth plan, which is usually developed and worked out in prenatal care. She states she understood her risk was 2%*, and that instead of trialling or discussing options they just left her for a few hrs and came back with the tablet. (edited to add that yes, her risk likely was higher than 2%, but this is why you discuss increased risks with patients and come up with a plan together - physicians and nurses have navigated this kind of situation for decades without needing the Florida state government or any other government to court-mandate reporting women who are reluctant or initially refuse a c-section)
And yes? They should have discussed with her a trial of labour instead of dropping the discussion and taking her to court. Unfortunately, legally, that may be the requirement now if they're worried she'd try and leave for a different hospital. Either way, it's wrong.
This kind of strong arm tactics contributes to women avoiding prenatal care and hospital delivery sadly, because women are scared they'll be treated like this. It's really detrimental.
You're right, and while I agree the risk could very well be higher I don't think that's actually the point here - the point is that there's actually a tonne of literature on how to address any situation like this with patients and discuss risks with them and have a conversation about what's going on and what possible approaches they could take - for example, a trial period of labour with a set time and with conditions that would lead the gynaecologist to decide a C-section is the only way to safely proceed.
That's essentially what happened anyway in terms of her trying labour for the night and then having an emegency c-section in the morning, except by not discussing that with her and approaching her as a prisoner and not a patient and dragging her into court, you're traumatizing someone. This is not an evidence-based way to treat a woman in labour. And it may have made things worse - possibly she could have given birth without a C-section if during the time she was actively trying to labour if the staff had actually assisted her and walked her through it and helped rather than her being taken to court by the Florida government.
You're saying she understood the risk to be 2% like that's justification, but it's actually the reason this is crazy because rather than spending the time talking her through the actual risks and why the physician thought a C-section was necessary for safety - again, doctors are trained in this - the state of Florida took her to court. I'm not saying every doctor is great at those conversations, but there's a reason it's part of the training, and most women would absolutely be receptive to hearing that while a physician understands your concerns over your last c-section, the risk is much higher this time because of (x) and being in the hospital away from your kids is still better than them not having a mother. She wasn't given that chance. And honestly, I don't blame her for sharing more of her medical information with the press given what she's been through, and it really doesn't matter - not getting (or being able to access) prenatal care does not mean this treatment is okay or validated by evidence. It's not. And your assumptions are just that - assumptions.
It's kind of crazy to me that you're justifying that yes, her risk was likely higher and 2% isn't based in research - which I agree, it likely was - to suggest taking her to court rather than coming up with a plan and discussing the risks and concerns the physician and healthcare staff had with her like that's not something that is absolutely 100% not based in evidence and actively harmful. It is not routine and was not done until Florida changed abortion and fetal rights laws. The ACOG has best practice papers, and so do other colleges in other countries and this is not based on science in any way, at all. It is based on politics. It is anti-science and anti-medicine, and it will increase distrust in the medical system and doctors (this is part of the design, tbh) and scare more women off from seeking necessary care for their pregnancies - that's deadly.
Do you think doctors and nurses were just to dumb to do this before Florida enacted these laws? That they just didn't realise THIS is actually the evidence-based way to treat pregnant women? No, because it's not. And when medical professionals testify in these proceedings please remember that while they're providing medical evidence about the pregnancy, it does not mean they agree with these policies. The truth is there's a rock and a hard place legally and professionally in terms of speaking publicly, and that not having gynaecologists at all would leave women in a worse place - what I'm saying is you shouldn't assume that the medical professionals testifying (and especially not all or most of us) agree with this just because they're legally required by the state of Florida to report and to attend and give evidence.
Again, do you think doctors and nurses were too stupid to realise this was "necessary" before politicians decided it was? In that case, why go to a hospital at all. I guess that's where RFK Jr comes in, right? Medicine should not be dictated by politicians, and please don't be fooled by the language coaching all of this in "safety" and "science" on the part of the courts. If the Florida law requires this and physicians are required to give evidence and report the decision being made is a legal one, not a medical one. Which is why criminalizing women for their pregnancies, for abortions (of any kind - abortion doesn't just mean deliberate abortion, although the public uses the word that way), for birth control, is not based in science, and why this wasn't how pregnancies were treated prior to this law or in places where reporting to the state isn't required for pregnant women with higher risk factors coming in and stating they want to try a vaginal delivery first.
I don't mean that as a personal attack on you. I know you're repeating what you're been told and heard because there's a concerted attack on science and medicine (especially in gynaecological medicine) in the US right now and think you're actually defending the science here, and there are other people who think this as well and intend well - that's why I'm writing such a long comment about this.
And to make that clear - the legal proceedings were about the safety of her fetus/baby. Not her.
Traumatizing a mother about to give birth is not helpful, and having PTSD from the birth (not to mention they prevented her from seeing or holding her baby after surgery for several hours, because she had to return to court!) can impact a of things for new mothers and baby in a really negative way. It sounds like she - thankfully - had a large circle of support and family to help her through that, but not all women do.
The impact can be really detrimental when it impacts bonding, when mothers become depressed after, this is not a small risk factor. And sometimes traumatic and difficult things are unavoidable - that's life and we deal as best we can. But sometimes they're completely avoidable.
PepperSticks | a day ago
Absolutely wild to read. The fact that the hospital has tablets to facilate zoom hearings?? FORCING someone to have a hearing when they have other things to worry about? I'm so sorry for that the state interfered like this.
"Florida courts don’t require lawyers for pregnant women in hearings about their medical decisions and the hospital didn’t provide an advocate, so Doyley had to go it alone" - again, WILD.
Labelloenchanted | 22 hours ago
This case was badly mishandled, but I can see why the hospital has tablets for emergency zoom hearings. For example if parents refuse life saving treatment for their child (like Jehovah's witnesses refusing transfusion) the hospital needs to take action immediately.
Melonary | 17 hours ago
Even in cases like this, as horrific as it is - if this woman didn't have a tablet/laptop or access to it while in hospital, could these ghouls penalize her for not going up or go ahead without her being represented at all?
It's not the hospital having the tech that sucks it's the literally every other part of this. It is reprehensible and disgusting to force any human to go through this, and extreme stress is not healthy for a pregnant woman or her fetus. Sometimes it's unavoidable by circumstance, but this is 100% avoidable and completely unnecessary.
PepperSticks | 6 hours ago
Yeah the tech is just a part of this horrible system. It feels absurd to me
PepperSticks | 7 hours ago
My first response was filled with anger, you make a fair point! I don't live in the US so I didn't think of this scenario. In the case of this pregnant woman, it feels soooo weird this is so normalised, getting a tablet with a Zoom with like 6 people you don't know
4ft3rh0urs | 4 hours ago
I disagree. i think the laws should be clear in the first place. aka. save the child's life in this situation is obvious
Labelloenchanted | 4 hours ago
Disagree about what? I said this case was mishandled. That doesn't negate the purpose of those zoom hearings in other medical cases.
4ft3rh0urs | 4 hours ago
I just meant i disagree that there should ever a precedent for a patient needing to be on a zoom call mid-procedure. If the lawmakers anticipate situations like this and write the laws to be very clear, we avoid this kind of shenanigans. The hospital can proceed to do their jobs, the patient can choose to leave or submit to the law, etc.
Tyros43 | 22 hours ago
This story makes me wildly uncomfortable and I’m neither American nor capable of giving birth. In what world can the state order you to be stabbed in the stomach with you having no means or opportunity to argue against them?
__worldpeace | 21 hours ago
In a world where a fetus/baby is considered the primary patient and the body in which it resides is just a nuisance.
GrudgingRedditAcct | a day ago
This is so absurd, a zoom court hearing?! During labour?! That is inhumane?!
TheDeansofQarth | 8 hours ago
Right? I am absolutely infuriated just reading this. I was on all fours most of the time during labour. That zoom call would have had a great view of my ass.
amyandgano | 22 hours ago
This woman's poise during a dystopian and frankly evil situation is admirable. I feel for her.
Summary for those who haven't read: this woman was in labor at a hospital and essentially forced to undergo a C-section (major abdominal surgery) against her will. The hospital attempted to force this woman to have a C-section (believing it was best for the unborn child) and then wheeled a tablet into the room to force her to attend a Zoom court hearing with an actual judge, wearing only a hospital gown.
This woman already had 3 children, and the last time she had a C-section, she nearly bled to death and required hospitalization for a week. She only wanted to attempt vaginal birth and her understanding was that the chance of something going wrong was less than 2%. She feared that having another C-section would gravely endanger her life and leave her children without a mother, but all of this was dismissed.
There are also horrible racial dynamics here, as the woman in question is black, and nearly everyone on the Zoom call denying her jurisdiction over her own body was white. And in general it's a prime example of a woman being treated like an incubator, whose rights are superseded by that of her unborn child.
DrDalekFortyTwo | 51 minutes ago
To emphasize, she was in labor at the time of the hearing
zeitgeistincognito | a day ago
Disgusting abuse of power. Legislators have no business inside our bodies and cases like these (and many others) demonstrate this. The inherent misogyny in these laws and the people who carry them out is revolting to consider and even more so for the folks forced to endure the enaction of the laws on their bodies.
bonestars | 22 hours ago
I had a C-section with no complications for my first child. For my second child, I was not only given the choice of a VBAC or C-section, but I was actually encouraged to do a VBAC because the risk for uterine rupture was that low 2%! I live in South Carolina, another red, conservative state.
What's the difference between Doyley and I? I'm a white woman, and she is a black woman. It's absolutely ridiculous that it got to the point of a court hearing for her.
(There are other differences, of course, but I truly feel race played a big part in her case.)
TigerBelmont | 22 hours ago
Also she had three prior c sections and the risk goes up each time. She also may have other complications (obesity, diabetes high blood pressure).
Reading the article it never states she had prenatal care. Shouldn’t her personal ob be referenced? There is nothing about a prior discussion of a trial of labor.
Lack of prenatal care is also a risk factor.
Melonary | 17 hours ago
She may have higher risk factors, but this kind of high stress situation itself is not a healthy situation to place a very pregnant woman in. Extreme stress isn't great either, and while it's sometimes unavoidable...this is.
High risk and complications should be discussed with the woman (or patient) and between them and their physician. Not court. Criminalizing that is a farce, the negative impact on not only her and her fetus and family but also every other pregnant or possibly pregnant in the future woman who sees this and becomes terrified to seek medical care for pregnancy or to give birth in a hospital is immense.
It's a fucking laugh for this state to talk about high risk pregnancy and drag a heavily pregnant woman into court over her medical decisions.
TigerBelmont | 17 hours ago
My deduction is that she did not actually have a physician. Nowhere in either article did it mention anything about her discussing a vbac with her doctor or that she had a doctor at all. Only that she had a birth plan.
I don't think you would find many physicians willing to do a vbac3. It get more dangerous each time. The hospital had allowed her to labor for 24 hours before the went to ipad court.
I don't think this was a criminal case. More of a guardian situation.
In the end the baby ended up in the nicu.It could have been worse. They both could have been dead. I don't like court getting involved in medical decisions, but I dont like unnecessarily dead babies either.
Melonary | 13 hours ago
By physician I meant the physicians overseeing her stay in the labour ward.
Unless Florida standards have gotten SO low they don't have physicians doing major surgery she'd be seeing a gynaecologist and they'd oversee her care, along with nurses and other staff.
The issue here is that this is legal and increasingly common because of anti-abortion laws - even in the article: "“Everybody was very concerned about the baby’s welfare,” Jenny Van Ravestein, director of women’s services at the hospital, said during the hearing.
No one actually came back and TALKED to the mother! She said she wanted to try a vaginal delivery, they said they didn't want to but relented or dropped it, and then told her she was being taken to court - that's insane and not in any way recommended medical practice.
I'm a med student. This is not typical and trying to justify it is what the US gov is trying to do, wrongly. We have training in how to handle this, there are discussions physicians can have with a patient about risk and making a decision about how long to try before moving to a c-section and the dangers involved, addressing fears and concerns, etc, and returning to indicate emergency surgery is now necessary (which is what ended up happening anyway - so why bother with court, there was no conclusion because she ended up requiring surgery before the result). Legally being required to take them to COURT is crazy.
And it will keep women from getting prenatal care and going to a hospital for delivery. That kills women and babies. That's well documented.
Melonary | 13 hours ago
Also nowhere in the article does it state or even imply she had no prenatal care? Where are you pulling that from? .
She had a birth plan, which is usually developed and worked out in prenatal care. She states she understood her risk was 2%*, and that instead of trialling or discussing options they just left her for a few hrs and came back with the tablet. (edited to add that yes, her risk likely was higher than 2%, but this is why you discuss increased risks with patients and come up with a plan together - physicians and nurses have navigated this kind of situation for decades without needing the Florida state government or any other government to court-mandate reporting women who are reluctant or initially refuse a c-section)
And yes? They should have discussed with her a trial of labour instead of dropping the discussion and taking her to court. Unfortunately, legally, that may be the requirement now if they're worried she'd try and leave for a different hospital. Either way, it's wrong.
This kind of strong arm tactics contributes to women avoiding prenatal care and hospital delivery sadly, because women are scared they'll be treated like this. It's really detrimental.
TigerBelmont | 5 hours ago
She’s a doula. Many women make their own birth plan.
It’s very strange that her personal physician can’t mentioned.
Either:
“My ob agreed I could try vbac for x hours labor “
Or”my ob disagreed but my research said it was ok”
It doesn’t say the doctors told her 2%. That actually for vbacx1 with no complications such as obesity.
It stands “she understood the risk to be 2%” which evades where she got this information. The article is written very cleverly.
Melonary | 4 hours ago
You're right, and while I agree the risk could very well be higher I don't think that's actually the point here - the point is that there's actually a tonne of literature on how to address any situation like this with patients and discuss risks with them and have a conversation about what's going on and what possible approaches they could take - for example, a trial period of labour with a set time and with conditions that would lead the gynaecologist to decide a C-section is the only way to safely proceed.
That's essentially what happened anyway in terms of her trying labour for the night and then having an emegency c-section in the morning, except by not discussing that with her and approaching her as a prisoner and not a patient and dragging her into court, you're traumatizing someone. This is not an evidence-based way to treat a woman in labour. And it may have made things worse - possibly she could have given birth without a C-section if during the time she was actively trying to labour if the staff had actually assisted her and walked her through it and helped rather than her being taken to court by the Florida government.
You're saying she understood the risk to be 2% like that's justification, but it's actually the reason this is crazy because rather than spending the time talking her through the actual risks and why the physician thought a C-section was necessary for safety - again, doctors are trained in this - the state of Florida took her to court. I'm not saying every doctor is great at those conversations, but there's a reason it's part of the training, and most women would absolutely be receptive to hearing that while a physician understands your concerns over your last c-section, the risk is much higher this time because of (x) and being in the hospital away from your kids is still better than them not having a mother. She wasn't given that chance. And honestly, I don't blame her for sharing more of her medical information with the press given what she's been through, and it really doesn't matter - not getting (or being able to access) prenatal care does not mean this treatment is okay or validated by evidence. It's not. And your assumptions are just that - assumptions.
It's kind of crazy to me that you're justifying that yes, her risk was likely higher and 2% isn't based in research - which I agree, it likely was - to suggest taking her to court rather than coming up with a plan and discussing the risks and concerns the physician and healthcare staff had with her like that's not something that is absolutely 100% not based in evidence and actively harmful. It is not routine and was not done until Florida changed abortion and fetal rights laws. The ACOG has best practice papers, and so do other colleges in other countries and this is not based on science in any way, at all. It is based on politics. It is anti-science and anti-medicine, and it will increase distrust in the medical system and doctors (this is part of the design, tbh) and scare more women off from seeking necessary care for their pregnancies - that's deadly.
Do you think doctors and nurses were just to dumb to do this before Florida enacted these laws? That they just didn't realise THIS is actually the evidence-based way to treat pregnant women? No, because it's not. And when medical professionals testify in these proceedings please remember that while they're providing medical evidence about the pregnancy, it does not mean they agree with these policies. The truth is there's a rock and a hard place legally and professionally in terms of speaking publicly, and that not having gynaecologists at all would leave women in a worse place - what I'm saying is you shouldn't assume that the medical professionals testifying (and especially not all or most of us) agree with this just because they're legally required by the state of Florida to report and to attend and give evidence.
Again, do you think doctors and nurses were too stupid to realise this was "necessary" before politicians decided it was? In that case, why go to a hospital at all. I guess that's where RFK Jr comes in, right? Medicine should not be dictated by politicians, and please don't be fooled by the language coaching all of this in "safety" and "science" on the part of the courts. If the Florida law requires this and physicians are required to give evidence and report the decision being made is a legal one, not a medical one. Which is why criminalizing women for their pregnancies, for abortions (of any kind - abortion doesn't just mean deliberate abortion, although the public uses the word that way), for birth control, is not based in science, and why this wasn't how pregnancies were treated prior to this law or in places where reporting to the state isn't required for pregnant women with higher risk factors coming in and stating they want to try a vaginal delivery first.
I don't mean that as a personal attack on you. I know you're repeating what you're been told and heard because there's a concerted attack on science and medicine (especially in gynaecological medicine) in the US right now and think you're actually defending the science here, and there are other people who think this as well and intend well - that's why I'm writing such a long comment about this.
Melonary | 4 hours ago
And to make that clear - the legal proceedings were about the safety of her fetus/baby. Not her.
Traumatizing a mother about to give birth is not helpful, and having PTSD from the birth (not to mention they prevented her from seeing or holding her baby after surgery for several hours, because she had to return to court!) can impact a of things for new mothers and baby in a really negative way. It sounds like she - thankfully - had a large circle of support and family to help her through that, but not all women do.
The impact can be really detrimental when it impacts bonding, when mothers become depressed after, this is not a small risk factor. And sometimes traumatic and difficult things are unavoidable - that's life and we deal as best we can. But sometimes they're completely avoidable.
mudpupster | 4 hours ago
I couldn't finish reading this. It made me angry to what felt like an unhealthy extent.
^(I am so angry right now.)
treegrowsinbrooklyn1 | 18 hours ago
This was also posted in r/womeninnews and some of the comments were horrifying
TheDeansofQarth | 8 hours ago
:(
Able_Information_428 | 21 hours ago
not sure about the second paragraph's logic