MO - Misty Horner & baby die in home birth, Lees Summit, 8 Dec 2006

[southcitymom]

No, we don't know. But he made no effort to try and save them. A week in labor. The another several weeks with the placenta still intact, and finally the mother dying.

I would have a whole different feeling about this had they gotten help early on. I do understand that they have the right to believe in what they want, and live the way the want...but the baby was breech, and that's a problem when you have no one who has any sort of medical background. And then to let this labor go on for a week...that's the big problem I have.

I will say that if Misty didn't want treatment and she died...then that was her choice. But we really don't know because it sounds like those that were around her (at the time of death) were those that believed in the same things as her husband and BIL.

I'm sure more facts will come out...either in a criminal court or in a civil court.

Think about this...There have been many cases where women have given birth and allowed the baby to die in a toilet. Many times these women claimed that the baby was stillborn, but through an autopsy it was determined that the baby drowned, and the mother was then charged with the death of the baby.

This isn't really any different. They can't say they thought she was dead, so they did nothing. They didn't know this. How could they know? But she is dead, and no one did a thing to help that little baby. The husband used a pair of dirty scissors to make a cut to allow her head to pass. I don't think for one minute he (or anyone else there) would have a way to know if the baby was alive or dead.

I agree - I think he thought the baby was alive - that's why he made a cut to help the head pass. We just don't know when or why the baby died inside of the mother. I do not know if that can be determined by an autopsy. As you point out, autopsy can determine if a baby drowned when the mother said it was born dead.

I believe an autopsy of the child will be key in any case against the husband. Though I cannot fault him for respecting his wife's wishes. If my husband didn't respect MY wishes in such a circumstance, I would be beyond furious.

 

[luvbeaches]

I agree - I think he thought the baby was alive - that's why he made a cut to help the head pass. We just don't know when or why the baby died inside of the mother. I do not know if that can be determined by an autopsy. As you point out, autopsy can determine if a baby drowned when the mother said it was born dead.

I believe an autopsy of the child will be key in any case against the husband. Though I cannot fault him for respecting his wife's wishes. If my husband didn't respect MY wishes in such a circumstance, I would be beyond furious.

I've looked and looked and haven't found anything about the autopsy concerning the baby. I wonder if it will be released once they release Misty's results?

Well, I'd be angry with hubby if he didn't follow my wishes, but IMO, this is different. We're talking about a baby.

If you didn't want to feed your baby, would your husband stand by and allow the child to starve to death because that's what you wanted?

If there wasn't a baby involved, and she was refusing treatment for herself, we would not be having this discussion.

However, it is entirely possible that she went along with him completely on this. And if this is true, they are both to blame. But we don't know what her role is in this...if any.

 

[Details]

Seems to me the only difference between a cut to let the head pass, and medical treatment is a cleaner knife - how exactly is he justifying this again?

 

[mssheila]

If you read my last post, it says the ME told CALEB that all she needed was some antibiotics and she would be fine.

And CALEB said NO. It does not say "Misty said no". Caleb did.

 

[Amraann]

I agree - I think he thought the baby was alive - that's why he made a cut to help the head pass. We just don't know when or why the baby died inside of the mother. I do not know if that can be determined by an autopsy. As you point out, autopsy can determine if a baby drowned when the mother said it was born dead.

I believe an autopsy of the child will be key in any case against the husband. Though I cannot fault him for respecting his wife's wishes. If my husband didn't respect MY wishes in such a circumstance, I would be beyond furious.

I usually agree with most of your posts SCM but in this case I disagree in that she was in labor for 5 days... I believe someone above pointed out that as a Police Officer he would have some basic training in emergencies.
At the very least when his wife was at deaths door he would have known it because he would have that basic knowledge of how to access someones vitals.

5 days of labor .... As an officer he HAD to have known they were in a serious emergency like situation.

Like my previous post siting if my underfed breast fed child died because of my religion .... A similar example could be used for the wife.
If I come upon someone is need of medical help and I just ignore that then I can be charged...
If that person says "no, don't call an ambulance" then falls unconscious, I can still be held responsible."
In light of the quote from her mother saying that Misty said she must be submissive to her husband ... I would think if her husband sought her help she really would just have to agree with him...

Freedom of religion does not mean a free pass to act irresponsible.
Does this even qualify as a religion? I think the law only extends to legally recognized religions.
If some loon decides to create up a church that molests children...
Them saying it was their religious belief is not going to keep their butt out of prison.
Is it even legal to deliver a baby Deliberately when that could be avoided without at least midwife license?
Like practicing medicine without a license?

 

[southcitymom]

I usually agree with most of your posts SCM but in this case I disagree in that she was in labor for 5 days... I believe someone above pointed out that as a Police Officer he would have some basic training in emergencies.
At the very least when his wife was at deaths door he would have known it because he would have that basic knowledge of how to access someones vitals.

5 days of labor .... As an officer he HAD to have known they were in a serious emergency like situation.

Like my previous post siting if my underfed breast fed child died because of my religion .... A similar example could be used for the wife.
If I come upon someone is need of medical help and I just ignore that then I can be charged...
If that person says "no, don't call an ambulance" then falls unconscious, I can still be held responsible."
In light of the quote from her mother saying that Misty said she must be submissive to her husband ... I would think if her husband sought her help she really would just have to agree with him...

Freedom of religion does not mean a free pass to act irresponsible.
Does this even qualify as a religion? I think the law only extends to legally recognized religions.
If some loon decides to create up a church that molests children...
Them saying it was their religious belief is not going to keep their butt out of prison.
Is it even legal to deliver a baby Deliberately when that could be avoided without at least midwife license?
Like practicing medicine without a license?

Hi Amraann,

My understanding is that the practicing medicine without a license law only applies if you charge someone for your services.

I agree that if the husband in this case came upon someone in medical peril and did not call for medical help, that would be wrong. But in this case, the husband was married to a wife that did not want medical intervention and he knew this. The distinction is subtle to me, but important.

My stepmother-in-law has ovarian cancer. She has decided to refuse what Western medicine has to offer her (surgery and chemo) and let nature take its course. She could certainly buy some life if she made a different choice. Instead she is dying before our eyes. Should my father-in-law be charged with murder when she does finally die? Should he and other medical professionals force her to have surgery and force her to have chemo? I don't think so. She is an adult woman who has made her decision. I respect her decision, just as I respect the decision of the mother in this case.

I do agree that the child is a different matter, but I am not prepared to "blame" the father in this case until there is some proof that the child died as a result of the father (and mother) not seeking medical attention.

Was the mother brainwashed into a submissive role by her husband or did the mother willingly accept and sumbit to such a role? Who knows. Perhaps we will find out more. But the mother was an adult woman, allowed to make her own choices however bizarre they might seem to the rest of us.

 

[Annie]

Hi Amraann,

My understanding is that the practicing medicine without a license law only applies if you charge someone for your services.

I agree that if the husband in this case came upon someone in medical peril and did not call for medical help, that would be wrong. But in this case, the husband was married to a wife that did not want medical intervention and he knew this. The distinction is subtle to me, but important.

My stepmother-in-law has ovarian cancer. She has decided to refuse what Western medicine has to offer her (surgery and chemo) and let nature take its course. She could certainly buy some life if she made a different choice. Instead she is dying before our eyes. Should my father-in-law be charged with murder when she does finally die? Should he and other medical professionals force her to have surgery and force her to have chemo? I don't think so. She is an adult woman who has made her decision. I respect her decision, just as I respect the decision of the mother in this case.

I do agree that the child is a different matter, but I am not prepared to "blame" the father in this case until there is some proof that the child died as a result of the father (and mother) not seeking medical attention.

Was the mother brainwashed into a submissive role by her husband or did the mother willingly accept and sumbit to such a role? Who knows. Perhaps we will find out more. But the mother was an adult woman, allowed to make her own choices however bizarre they might seem to the rest of us.

I see a world of difference in a woman who is dying of cancer refusing treatment and a young healthy woman having a baby dying unnecessarily when she probably could have been saved with antibiotics. This was a young woman who had a life ahead of her. If they had gotten help soon enough the baby might have been turned to deliver head first or a caesarian could have been done and both mother and baby could be alive.

 

[IrishMist]

Hi Amraann,

My understanding is that the practicing medicine without a license law only applies if you charge someone for your services.

I agree that if the husband in this case came upon someone in medical peril and did not call for medical help, that would be wrong. But in this case, the husband was married to a wife that did not want medical intervention and he knew this. The distinction is subtle to me, but important.

My stepmother-in-law has ovarian cancer. She has decided to refuse what Western medicine has to offer her (surgery and chemo) and let nature take its course. She could certainly buy some life if she made a different choice. Instead she is dying before our eyes. Should my father-in-law be charged with murder when she does finally die? Should he and other medical professionals force her to have surgery and force her to have chemo? I don't think so. She is an adult woman who has made her decision. I respect her decision, just as I respect the decision of the mother in this case.

I do agree that the child is a different matter, but I am not prepared to "blame" the father in this case until there is some proof that the child died as a result of the father (and mother) not seeking medical attention.

Was the mother brainwashed into a submissive role by her husband or did the mother willingly accept and sumbit to such a role? Who knows. Perhaps we will find out more. But the mother was an adult woman, allowed to make her own choices however bizarre they might seem to the rest of us.

I have to agree, SCM.

We have to remember, too, that we don't know when the baby died. The articles I've read have all indicated that it was stillborn.

While it is a tragic situation, people are still allowed to refuse medical treatment if they so choose. Even if it doesn't make sense to the rest of us.

 

[southcitymom]

I see a world of difference in a woman who is dying of cancer refusing treatment and a young healthy woman having a baby dying unnecessarily when she probably could have been saved with antibiotics. This was a young woman who had a life ahead of her. If they had gotten help soon enough the baby might have been turned to deliver head first or a caesarian could have been done and both mother and baby could be alive.

My stepmother-in-law is in her 40s. I consider HER to be a young woman with a life ahead of her. It's not a perfect analogy, I understand. No situation where a person allows themselves to die is black and white.

I am just a firm believer that any adult has the right to make that choice for themselves regardless of circumstance without others being held criminally responsible.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Her best friend was there? She didn't share their religion. IMO She's supposed to be the SANE one and that would make her more responsible than her husband. She did nothing.

Personally, I don't think her husband should be charged.

If people want their religious beliefs respected than you must respect other peoples.

People have been dying & killing for their GODS since the begining of time. Shouldn't we all be used to it by now?

 

[mssheila]

You know... I was just thinking about something. Misty had a week of labor- that is a horrible ordeal! Then, she loses her baby- I can't imagine anything worse... Then she gets very sick herself.... I'm wondering if she was so depressed and dealing with so much grief that she was totally out of her mind! If she was, maybe she just didn't care whether she lived or died after what she'd been through. Maybe that's why she refused to get antibiotics and treat her illness. How sad when you think of it that way!

 

[IrishMist]

You know... I was just thinking about something. Misty had a week of labor- that is a horrible ordeal! Then, she loses her baby- I can't imagine anything worse... Then she gets very sick herself.... I'm wondering if she was so depressed and dealing with so much grief that she was totally out of her mind! If she was, maybe she just didn't care whether she lived or died after what she'd been through. Maybe that's why she refused to get antibiotics and treat her illness. How sad when you think of it that way!

Could be.

Or maybe she believed that this is what God wanted her to bear. And believed that she was submitting to God's will.

 

[Smurf]

I'm new here but have been reading your posts since the John Mark Karr debacle.

I have a friend who grew up with me. Her family belongs to the World Wide Church of God. Back when we were in about the 6th grade her sister (who was barely out of high school and was engaged became sick and died from kidney problem and then failure. At that time back in the 80's this church didn't believe in seeking medical attention. I just remember hearing the underlying gossip that her death could have been prevented with medical attention. I was curious and looked up this church that my friend (who now lives in France) still belongs to. Seems it has gone through some major changes in leadership...from the radical thinking founder who fancied himself a prophet and that it now seems a bit more normal in its teachings.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/aboutus/history.htm

The above link gives some of the history and the new approach to healing.

This case just reminded me of my friends sister who's life was cut short. Their father was very intimidating and I wonder if she was afraid to ask for help as well.

 

[southcitymom]

I'm new here but have been reading your posts since the John Mark Karr debacle.

I have a friend who grew up with me. Her family belongs to the World Wide Church of God. Back when we were in about the 6th grade her sister (who was barely out of high school and was engaged became sick and died from kidney problem and then failure. At that time back in the 80's this church didn't believe in seeking medical attention. I just remember hearing the underlying gossip that her death could have been prevented with medical attention. I was curious and looked up this church that my friend (who now lives in France) still belongs to. Seems it has gone through some major changes in leadership...from the radical thinking founder who fancied himself a prophet and that it now seems a bit more normal in its teachings.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/aboutus/history.htm

The above link gives some of the history and the new approach to healing.

This case just reminded me of my friends sister who's life was cut short. Their father was very intimidating and I wonder if she was afraid to ask for help as well.

Welcome, Smurf. Thanks for the interesting, informative post.

 

[IrishMist]

Hi Smurf, I'm glad you decided to join in

It's funny how those cases you hear about as a kid can stick with you.

I think that's part of the reason I'm pro-choice... when I was in 5th grade, a teenage couple found out they were pregnant. They agreed for him to push her down the stairs, only she ended seriously hurt and then she died.

Haunted me.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

The article states that the mother who died decided herself NOT to seek medical treatment. Why should her husband be charged with murder?

I agree. She was a grown- woman who apparently knew the ways of the world. If she wanted to obtain medical intervention, she knew how to get it.

 

[GlitchWizard]

I guess I'm thinking we are always wanting to blame someone, arrest someone, hold someone accountable. The bottom line (for me, only) is that he didn't want his wife or child to die (I assume) and no one should be arrested for it.


That doesn't mean it's good, or right, or will make anyone sleep better at night - it still sucks all the way around, but he's lost his wife and child - that's more punishment than being arrested would bring. Having poor judgement and following a form of religon that isn't quite right in the head is just what some people do.

 

[Amraann]

I agree. She was a grown- woman who apparently knew the ways of the world. If she wanted to obtain medical intervention, she knew how to get it.

I question if after day 2 in labor she was in any frame of mind to make any decision like that? She had to have been in some serious pain with a breech baby not coming out. Possibly she had agreed to no medical care and then changed her mind? I only suggest that because I cannot imagine being in that kind of pain for 5 days and NOT seeking a dr.
The article I read only states that her husband declined medical care for her.

Her mother said that she went to Dr's her entire life until she married this guy..
So I just wonder who's wish this was.
Also like mssheila said above this women could have been so distruaght with guilt after she lost her baby that she possibly really did need someone to watch out for her.

I believe there have been cases where women have not sought prenatal care along with other neglectful actions and they have been prosecuted due to the injury it caused the child...
In my mind it neglect if your some crack who does not seek prenatal care or you claim its your religious beliefs.
Most that home deliver have at the very least a midwife present.

 

[Amraann]

I guess I'm thinking we are always wanting to blame someone, arrest someone, hold someone accountable. The bottom line (for me, only) is that he didn't want his wife or child to die (I assume) and no one should be arrested for it.


That doesn't mean it's good, or right, or will make anyone sleep better at night - it still sucks all the way around, but he's lost his wife and child - that's more punishment than being arrested would bring. Having poor judgement and following a form of religon that isn't quite right in the head is just what some people do.

Glitch ignorance should not be a permissable exuse IMO.
If he did not want them to die then you do whatever on earth you must to prevent that.
Drunk drivers could be said to have poor judgement.. yet if they kill someone they are accountable because their poor judgement led to the harm of others.

 

[angelmom]

I question if after day 2 in labor she was in any frame of mind to make any decision like that? She had to have been in some serious pain with a breech baby not coming out. Possibly she had agreed to no medical care and then changed her mind? I only suggest that because I cannot imagine being in that kind of pain for 5 days and NOT seeking a dr.
The article I read only states that her husband declined medical care for her.

Her mother said that she went to Dr's her entire life until she married this guy..
So I just wonder who's wish this was.
Also like mssheila said above this women could have been so distruaght with guilt after she lost her baby that she possibly really did need someone to watch out for her.

This is a very interesting point. It reminds me of when we discussed having a tubal ligation during the scheduled c-section of my daughter. My doctor discussed it with me months before the delivery. He said I could fill out the forms and then change my mind NOT to have the procedure at any time up until they did it; however, I couldn't decide to have the procedure once I was in labor or at the hospital. Once in labor or with my IVs started, I would not be considered legally in a state of mind to sign the forms. In fact, he preferred I make the decision before I began my third trimester, because he didn't think a woman who is 9 months pregnant is the most objective about if she ever wants to do this again! A valid point, IMHO.

A friend who was having her 2nd baby was in labor and it was starting to get drawn out. She was concerned about having a c-section, and asked her husband if he wanted her to have a ligation if it came to that. The nurse overheard and told her it was too late to sign the forms. It wasn't a legally viable option.

SO, if being in labor makes you "unsound" to make a decision like that, then it probably means you can't decide not to seek medical attention either. As a police officer, if he came upon an accident where someone was gravely injured and they said, "Just let me die! I don't believe in medical science!" wouldn't he still be required to call an ambulance? Duh. :doh: Of course he would. Why is this different?