Looking for something? Start here.
Custom Search

 

Want The Unnecesarean in your inbox? Enter your email address:




 

   

« TheUnnecesarean.com Birth Stories Blog: July Stories | St. Barnabas Medical Center's Cesarean Rate is 49.3 Percent »
Thursday
Jul302009

Anonymous Comments about New Jersey Cesarean Refusal Case

Share on Facebook

 

An anonymous commenter has been leaving comments on three posts on The Unnecesarean about the woman in New Jersey who initially lost custody of her child in part due to refusing a cesarean while in labor. The following are excerpts from these comments. This commenter either has intimate knowledge of the case, spins a good (and very detailed) yarn or both.

 

About the consent form

The medical staff at St. Barnabas hospital lied to DYFS initially and stated that V.M. did not sign the consent form. When the medical records were order the hospital dishonestly withheld the second page of the consent form which contained the signature of V.M. During the abuse and neglect hearing Judge Rothschild and DYFS did not know that a second page existed. Although V.M. had asked the hospital for a copy they refused to give it to her. A copy of the second page was obtained by DYFS lawyers in 2007 during the guardianship trial. V.M. did not lie under oath but the medical staff at St. Barnabas Hospital in Livingston, N.J. did. In addition, any doctor who is on the payroll for DYFS lies about diagnosis and in every case that they evaluate declares the parents UNFIT.

 

 

About the birth and hospital

It needs to be clarified that the nurses were punching V.M. in the legs so hard that V.M. sustained large bruises on her legs which were the size of baseballs. In addition, V.M.’s legs were very swollen and the bruises remained and on April 24 2006 showed bruises to Livingston police. Officers wanted the names of nurses so that they could arrest them along with some of the doctors. Police stated to V.M. and B.G. that Judge James Rothschild and hospital had broken the law. In addition, the doctor who gave the epidural terminated the nurses from the labor and delivery because he witness nurses punching V.M. and pushing her by the shoulders so that he could not give the shot. It took approximately 15 minutes to arrange the new nurses and he gave the shot as soon as the new nurses arrived. I think that all of the judges in the case are aware that the doctors and nurses are crazy criminals but it is easier for them to blame the patient so that is what they are doing. The judges most likely believe that everyone that goes to that hospital is in imminent danger.

 

***

Dr. Shetel Mansuria lied to V.M. about the fetus. There were no complications with the fetus.

 

***

It just seems as though the staff at St. Barnabas Hospital believes that someone has given them the power to make decisions for newborns and children such as deciding if they personally like the parents and interrogating parents and exhibiting suspicions about parents that not only require an investigation by the hospital but further by the state.

 

***

There has already been a protest in front of St. Barnabas because of their high c-section rate. I think if a woman gives birth at St. Barnabas is like a canned hunt. I mean they hook you up to so many machines, IV’s that it makes it difficult to defend yourself against the crazy nurses punching you in order to try force a c-section. I think they are probably doing that to everyone who walks through the door.

 

 

About psychiatric diagnoses and V.M.’s history

A lot of the people who made comments with regard to this case have missed or are unaware of the Constitution of the United States. You are all discussing and trying to examine the conditions of mental health when by law it is not a legal argument to make that is someone has alleged mental illness that the state can say that having constitutes abuse or neglect of a fetus or child.

The National Mental Health Alliance has said that they are trying to prevent psychiatrists in this country from harboring the view that their patients cannot be parents. I can’t believe why anyone who has children or is planning to have children would place themselves in such a vulnerable situation by seeing a mental health worker because at anytime if the doctor tips off DYFS, the parents can lose their children.

 

***

Seltzer is lying. She stated to Dr. Jacoby that V.M. either suffered from a schizoaffective disorder or manic depressive illness. First of all she did reports, four depositions and monthly worker’s comp insurance forms from June 1994 to Dec. 2005 under penalty of perjury and Dr. Seltzer stated that V.M. suffered post traumatic stress disorder, depression and panic attacks from injuries at work on May 6, 1993. The N.Y. worker’s comp law judge found in favor of V.M. and informed V.M. that she did not have to take any medication if she didn’t want to. In addition Dr. Seltzer did not cooperate with sending the insurance company her notes so the judge sent her a subpoena. The insurance company had a copy of all of Seltzer’s notes every month along with the worker’s comp forms. The Appellate Court in NY made decisions that the only things that Seltzer was treating V.M. for was PTSD, Depression and Panic Disorder. If Seltzer began treating V.M. for something else she would be required to report this to the insurance company and to V.M. and her attorney. It appears that Dr. Seltzer wanted to cause problems for V.M. because V.M. had terminated care. That is so vindictive.

 

 

About the subjectivity of mental health diagnoses

Doctors and the state are not allowed to force a parent to go through a screening process and have to apply and gain approval in order to be a parent. A lot of the people who posted comments were trying to figure out mental health opinions. The DSM IV Manual that doctors use to diagnose mental conditions is a book. There is no blood test, x-ray or other test to prove what they allege. Most of the time psychiatric claims made by psychiatrists cannot be proven in court. The DYFS workers lie in every case as they have a motive which is to try to deny custody and the DYFS doctors lie because they are told what to do by the DYFS workers. The DYFS agency is rewarded each year by receiving between 35,000 - 150,000 for each child they keep in foster care.

 

***

The DSM IV Manual that psychiatrists use to diagnose is available at most libraries in the reference section. If you really read that manual it makes a person realize what bullshit is. I mean basically I don’t believe most of it. That is why there is no test to prove mental illness. Don’t you think that with all the technology they would have been able to come up with some test. The reason psychiatrist and researchers haven’t come up with a test is because the whole DSM IV manual is bullshit.

 

 

About B.G. (the father)

B.G. was found not guilty of abuse and neglect. Why did the judges continue custody with DYFS?

 

 

About the New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services 

…DYFS gets away with murder because they claim that everything is confidential so the media never finds out what they are doing. The Appellate Court made the illogical decision that if anyone who is pregnant is accused by the doctors that they didn’t follow the doctor’s instructions to a T then it is equivalent to not following the instructions of a police officer. I mean, if one refuses to obey an officer’s instructions they can be cited with a ticket of failure to comply or if an officer claims that a person is loud or combative then the officer can charge the person with disturbing the peace or a petty disorderly.

Well, both the family court Judges and the Appellate Judges are sending a message with this case. First, all the pregnant women and their husbands need to be aware that OB/GYNs have the same status as a police officer and if the doctor claims that the patient was not cooperative during prenatal care or labor and delivery the baby might be taken away from them.

In addition, if a person plans to have a child during their lifetime it is not a good idea to seek any mental health treatment because both the doctors and DYFS can use it to deny custodial rights to a parent.

This case boils down to two things: OB/GYNs make more money doing c-sections and testing and the more trauma the psychiatrists can cause to people, the more treatment they can recommend. Let’s face it, doctors and hospitals make their living off of injured and sick people. Interesting that OBAMA made a statement in his address that the current health care system is bankrupting the taxpayers, government and people in general and that Congress is currently working on a plan to force the doctors and hospitals to change their status quo which is to perform surgery because it is lucrative and not because it is required.

 

***

I mean if the doctors at St. Barnabas tried to take someone’s car away that would be grand theft but taking someone’s baby away is a snap. All they have to do is call DYFS and tell them to take the child away and the DYFS worker’s without any evidence will lie, cheat and go to any extreme including screaming at the doctors who are on their payroll to lie in reports to achieve their ultimate goal denial of custody.

 

 

About reactions to refusing a cesarean

…I think that if the state of N.J. and doctors were doing this to men there would be so many doctors beat up and shot at that the state would have to change that law. I do not agree with the people who wrote in and said it is not a good idea to strike against doctors and hospitals. If we take away their money they will be forced to change their ways. If there are birthing centers staffed with midwives in the state of N.J. that will help the situation. The only way we will change OB/GYNS is if we boycott hospitals such as St. Barnabas Hospital. That is the only way to get through to them. The doctors and hospitals will ignore all the groups and all the talk in the meantime.

Due to the fact that most women fold under the pressure to consent to c-sections it makes it extremely difficult for the few who do not. We live in a society that where the victimization of women is very common. The judges made the decision that they did, not because they gave a damn about fetuses but because it scares them as men that a woman is smart enough to figure out that the OB/GYN was lying to her and was strong enough through all of the beatings she endured from the nursing staff and she still didn’t fold. Well, that just plain scares the men. They want to send a message with their decision that they will not tolerate intelligence and strength from women. They will only tolerate that from men.

It is time for a change. Unless a person has a terminal illness or is injured we do not really need doctors. If birthing centers staffed with midwives are available in every state then who needs an OB/GYN. After all, an OB/GYN is a surgeon and that basically means that is you go to one as a patient you are setting yourself up for surgery. For instance, I have all my exams done by a primary care doctor so I do not need an OB/GYN. If I ever become pregnant I would use a midwife at a birthing center or do a home birth but I would never go to a hospital. I think there should be a demonstration in front of St. Barnabas Hospital and the media should cover it.

 

 

About the future of the case

This case is on its way to the N.J. Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court and the ACLU has expressed interest in filing an amicus brief. At some point in the near future the courts will have to award custody to B.G. V.M. will also probably also eventually get custody.

 

 

Excerpts (with typos corrected for easier reading) from comments originating from the same IP address were left on the following posts:

Superior Court of New Jersey Terminates Cesarean-Refusing Mom’s Parental Rights (July 20, 2009)

Refusal of Unnecesarean Leads to Loss of Custody: V’s Story (July 21, 2009)

New Jersey Cesarean Refusal Case: The “System” is Schizophrenic (July 23, 2009)

 

Also related:

St. Barnabas Medical Center’s Cesarean Rate is 49.3 Percent (July 29, 2009)

 

 

Bookmark and Share       

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (7)

Hmm, it seems like if V.M. had been bruised by the nurses so that the cops wanted to arrest them, that there would be a police report about it. And it seems like that could and should have been presented at the hearing -- had the child's parents gone. The more I read about this case -- pro or con -- the weirder and more convoluted it gets.

July 31, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKathy

The red flag for me in this whole thing is the allegation that multiple nurses were punching/physical abusing VM to prevent her receiving an epidural with the anesthesiologist present. I just don't believe that. I think this is one story where we'll never learn the truth because it is being obscured on both sides.

July 31, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterskeptical

Kathy, maybe you can help me. I've read a few times that there are sides taken on this case. What is the pro and what is the con? I've been confused by that.

July 31, 2009 | Registered CommenterJill

skeptical,

Yeah, I have no idea, either. It will be interesting to see the case move forward and I just hope it works out in he best interest of everyone involved, whatever that is.

July 31, 2009 | Registered CommenterJill

Well, listening to her side of the argument (that she didn't refuse the C-section at all and that there was no reason for DYFS to take the baby from her), I feel a great deal of sympathy for her. But then reading the court document of multiple witnesses all saying that she denied certain things from her past, her not showing up at the hearing, the two psychiatrists who got restraining orders against them, all make me feel less sympathetic for her and lean more towards the court's ruling in this.

As "skeptical" said, the truth has probably been obscured on both sides, so that it can no longer be accurately or easily determined.

July 31, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterKathy

Kathy, you clarified that for me-- thanks. For many, this has turned into another "Should she get the baby back or should she not get the baby back?" debate. That's nothing I want to be a part of, actually. Judging and speculating about someone's supposedly mental health and capability to parent is a waste of energy, especially when even the "experts" in the case couldn't agree. As the case advances, there will be more expert opinions and the ruling might be different.

My interest in this woman's case is that she was not allowed to leave the hospital with her baby because she refused a cesarean and other intervention in her birth. This was reason enough for the hospital to call in two psychiatrists and a social worker in order to label her behavior in labor and in the hospital a cause for concern. That was part of the family court ruling, too, and THAT is the story and a real cause for concern.

Should she get her baby back? I don't know. Not my business. Not really any of our business. Was it absolutely ridiculous and shocking that refusing a cesarean was a determining factor in why her forehead was stamped with "CRAZY" and she was sent home without her baby? Absolutely.

August 1, 2009 | Registered CommenterJill

There is interesting perspectives presented here regarding the whole. From my personal experience, I can fully understand how these poor folks have been unmercifully made victims of our warped system: they AND their child! Determining that they are "at fault" for things like forcefully reacting to stressful situations, or were "negligent" simply because they missed court dates is acting on an assumption that cases like this are handled in a civilized, sane manner. From what I went through in my personal nightmare, I can say that things don't function in a "sane" or civilized manner in most juvenile courts. I was told, by my court appointed attorney, about "emergency" hearings that he had attended which I was not notified of. All in all, these circuses give the appearance of involved, "knowledgeable" people, who are granted "expert" ratings based on having some alphabet soup behind their name, who come before an impartial judge, who appears to have no hidden agendas, to give what is labeled "expert" testimony. However, these so called "experts" may be basing their testimony on pure gossip, innuendo, lies and opinions which, in reality, have NO basis in fact! I used to say, "Perception is reality, but it isn't always the TRUTH!" And judges allow this crap to influence juvenile cases with the altruistic rhetoric that all are acting "in the best interests of the child"! We all know how much "expert" testimony we would trust from an highly indoctrinated OB on the issue of NATURAL childbirth, when this doctor has NEVER personally witnessed or attended one!

There is a great book called "So They Say You're Crazy", written by a doctor about her personal involvement in many meetings and debates about the content which eventually became the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. Very insightful information about how "disorder" is invented, where none may exist, or where the so called "symptoms" are NORMAL human behavior or reactions, like the decision to create a syndrome for premenstrual side effects! This poor mom goes into a hospital probably fearing what will happen to her there and possibly knowing about their c-section rate. She is disallowed her personal autonomy to make decisions for herself, her body and her baby. And the lasting trauma this whole experience caused, appears as "paranoia" after the fact! Is this ABNORMAL, or pathology... or a NORMAL HUMAN reaction to her experience??

It seems to me, the only "crime" of this poor mother was the expectation that she had the ability to refuse any medical treatment or intervention presented to her during her labor and birth! YES! Boycott this hospital, and these unethical care providers! Trust NO ONE and expect that EVERYONE has a hidden personal agenda here and wants to gain something from this madness! And pray for these poor parents and their baby!

March 16, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterOnTiptoe
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.