Midwife charged with manslaughter - was acquited!

ilovemybaby wrote: There is a story on the news at the moment (here in NZ) about a midwife in Dunedin. In 2004 she delivered a baby and the baby died from lack of oxygen. The mother and father insisted on a natural birth even though their baby was breech. The midwife basically did what they wanted and delivered the baby naturally (instead of opting for a csection when things were going wrong). The baby died after birth.

The midwife was charged with manslaughter but acquited. Apparently the parents have laid no charges. It was the police that laid the charges. I guess the parents are not upset with the midwife because they insisted she deliver their baby naturally.

I think it's disgusting and that she should have been found guilty. Despite whether or not the mother and father did not want a c section. She should have been putting the babies health and life first. Yes, midwives are there to make the birth experience as easy and carefree as possible and she was obviously trying to keep the mother happy. But she still ignored the warning signs that the baby was distressed and continued with the natural delivery.

What do you all think?

If I was that mother I would be laying charges even if I had told her I wanted a natural birth. She should have told the mother that things were not going well and that baby was distressed and that she was going to phone the hospital so they could do a c section.

How is it any different to a hospital situation where they choose to do a c section when a baby is distressed and their heart rate has dropped or is dropping. The doctor would not even listen to the mother. He would just go ahead and do what is best for the mother AND child. IMO

And if they did not want to lay charges against the midwife, perhaps they should have laid the charges against the parents. How can that mother and father live with themselves, knowing they made that choice to ignore the problems and continue with a natural birth that ultimately killed their baby??!!

3_call_me_mama replied: I think it would be ridiculous to charge the parents because if the baby had died in a c section (and it does happen) they wouldn't be charged. Also i know several people that have delivered children breech and they were just fine, baby and mother. It is a disgrace that she was even charged with anything. A doctor HAS to listen to a patient. They cannot force you to have surgery, they can reccommend all they want and ultimately it's YOUR choice. You have to SIGN for the surgery stating that you understand all teh risks etc. They cannot force medical treatment on you. Also in my opinion this woman did not take her child's life. She did what she felt was best for her and her family which is what any parent does. Although it may not be teh decision you have chosen for yourself, does not necessarily make it the worng one. There is no way to know if that baby would have lived regardless of it's birth. Also were does it state that teh baby was in obvious signs of distress? a breech baby doesn't necessarily mean obvious distress. And dying after birth from lack of oxygen.... may no thave anyhting to do with teh birth or delivery itself. It would be interesting to read teh whoel article, as to wether teh baby was born at home, at a brith center what teh preexisting conditions etc were. And if teh parent sfeel that they recieved teh care that they paid for, asked for and are not wantign to press charges, who are we to say that charges should be brought? They just need to grieve for their lost child and let their bodies and hearts heal. IMO

mckayleesmom replied: I don't think that she should be charged either.....Even if she was a doctor...you CAN'T force someone to have a c-section...and if the mother refused to have one....that is part of her PATIENT RIGHTS. I think that if this happened in a regular hospital..you probably wouldn't even hear about it and the doctor wouldn't have been charged.

mckayleesmom replied:
False....The mother or father would still have to sign a consent for surgery and they can refuse to do so....A doctor can't do surgery on a patient that doesn't consent to it.

Kaitlin'smom replied: I dont think she shoudl have been chared either. Without reading the WHOLE story which we will probably never get. Now if she were to have refused to get the mother the c-section then something yes could have been dont but from what it sounded like it was NOT the midwifes choise and she did the best she could, why should she be charged for that? Like others said you cant force surgery on someone unless deemed incompdent.

MyLuvBugs replied: Personally, if you're going to blame the midwife in this situation, you should also blame the parents for not considering the health and safety of their child. But that's JMO.

MyLuvBugs replied:
VERY true!! It just sounds like there really is NO ONE to blame. Sometimes babies and moms just die in child birth. Pointing fingers and placing blame doesn't help the matters and won't bring the baby back.

jem0622 replied: It is sad and very unfortunate. My concern though is that she did not have an OB on hand for high risk circumstances. I had midwives help me deliver my boys (they were not available for my girls b/c of nasty malpractice nonsense in my state). If I became high risk during my pregnancy or delivery then an OB would assist.

I don't think the midwife is at fault or should be accused of death. I do believe in patient rights, but I also believe in safety and if what was in the best interest of the baby (everyone's talking about the mother and father, but the baby is a patient too) was a c-section then that is what should have occured. JMHO.

When I was talking with my practice about delivering the girls I did stress that I wanted to go for vaginal delivery. C-section was an option for me up to the time they induced and even after they started the pitocin drip. I wasn't progressing (until they broke my water). I knew Hannah was head down and could deliver her vaginally. Olivia was transverse quite a bit and we were not sure if she would go breech after Hannah came out. They did a u/s and she was head down so we delivered her vaginally too. But I did have an OB in the practice who said she would not deliver Olivia breech but all the other old school OBs would deliver her breech if that is what I wanted.

Ultimately, I just wanted to do what was best and safe for the girls and for me. I think all expecting parents should consider that instead of their own personal wants. It's a big step in parenting to do what is best for our children and not for ourselves. Again, JMHO.

PrairieMom replied: That is one of the reasons why OBGYN's have some of the highest malpratice insurance rates. Its hard for people to accept that sometimes yucky things just happen. Its yucky for everyone.
Here, C-sections for breech births are strongly encouraged for that very reason. How sad for everyone involved.

ilovemybaby replied:
Here here.

If I was the mother I would never be able to forgive myself. I agree, not only the mothers rights are important here. What about the baby?

Yes midwives are meant to do what the mother wants and yes, the mother probably made her feelings pretty clear about not wanting a c section. Just like I did about not wanting an epidural for pain relief. But the midwife never made any attempt to persuade her to have a c section.
IMO the baby died because it wasn't coming out fast enough and was distressed. Most doctors will not do breech births naturally.
I am sure that if I had to have a c section I would not want it either. It has always been one of my worst fears for labour. But if it meant the health or life of my child then I would do it. It isn't about fear and what I want. It's about my baby.
I think it is selfish to put my needs above those of my child in such a serious matter.
If my daughter needed an organ transplant and I was the only match I would do it. Even though I am terrified of operations and all that. It's not a matter of fear.

Here is another case we heard about last year... a midwife in the South Island also, was charged with manslaughter because she did a birth in a spa bath and the baby was obviously not going to come out and was distressed. She let the mother try for about two hours or more before transferring her to the hospital for a c section. The mother was obviously distressed too. The baby died about 15 minutes after birth. They said on the news that a doctor would not let a mother push for two or more hours. And if they had transferred her earlier, it would not have happened. She was actually fired so she can never practice again. She went against what was best for mother and baby. And the mother DID NOT ask that she deliver naturally no matter what.

My sister took an overdose in 1999 and nearly died. She took enough pills to kill two people and she refused to let doctors treat her. Which apparently she could because she was 16. But once she passed out (she was in a coma for two days) the doctors treated her. Yes patients have rights. But how can anyone live with themselves knowing they could have saved someones life and did not because the patient refused care? She was in no condition to make that decision. She was depressed and suicidal for goodness sakes. And the doctor knew that.

This situation is no different. I remember when I was in labour. How much pain I was in and how emotional I was. I was crying and saying I wanted to die. LOL Mothers in labour are not really in a state to make decisions either. Yes, we have the right to say no epidural, no pain relief and all that. And sometimes mothers say NO C SECTION. Does that mean the doctor/midwife should listen to the mother and do whatever she wants?

ilovemybaby replied:
Which I did say at the end of my original post.

Here is the link for the story I could find with the most information...

http://www.nztimes.co.nz/article.php?refid...baa2a738§=0

It says on the XTRA website that the jury took 11 hours to reach their verdict and two weeks to deliver the news.

ilovemybaby replied: For some reason the link doesn't work...

Midwife describes dead baby’s mother as strong-willed
Court Reporter Wednesday, 15th March 2006


Jennifer Crawshaw

The Dunedin midwife accused of causing a baby’s death two years ago has characterised the baby’s mother as a strong-willed person who dug her heels in when a specialist told her she would need a Caesarean delivery.

Jennifer Joan Crawshaw (44) was charged with manslaughter following inquiries into the baby’s death, 33 hours after it was born without respiration or a heart beat on March 14, 2004.

The Crown says Crawshaw caused the death because, in trying to accommodate the first-time mother’s wishes for a natural delivery of the breech baby, she failed to take appropriate action and seek medical assistance when it should have been apparent the baby needed help.

However, Crawshaw has given evidence the mother wanted a normal delivery and it appeared her concern she was being given no options, other than a Caesarean, made her more determined to have the baby the way she wanted to.

A midwife with many years experience both in New Zealand and overseas, including in isolated areas of rural Africa, Crawshaw yesterday told Justice Panckhurst and a High Court jury she had previous experience with breech births, some of them undiagnosed in home-birth situations, and all had ended very happily.

The defence has described the Crown case as a bumbling chronicle of false and inaccurate allegations, which had had devastating and unjustified effects on Crawshaw.

Blame had been cast on her without all the facts being obtained, and the case had been developed during the past two years with other inaccurate allegations, defence counsel Richard Raymond told the jury in his opening address.

He said the defence would call three specialists, an obstetrician, a paediatrician and a midwife, all from National Women’s Hospital in Auckland. Their evidence would be that Crawshaw’s actions had not involved a major departure from the standard of care expected in the particular situation, Mr Raymond said.

The trial was expected to be completed this week but, at the end of yesterday’s hearing, Justice Panckhurst told the jurors it was now likely the case would continue into next week.

Crawshaw’s evidence will continue today.

kimberley replied:
i agree.

~Roo'sMama~ replied:
I pushed for two and a half hours.

This is very sad for everyone involved. But we don't KNOW that the midwife didn't reccomend a c-section to the mother. It also says in the news story that a specialist told the mother she would need a c-section, so she was aware of that and chose not to anyways. And whether it's right or wrong the midwife could not legally have forced the mother to have one.

MyLuvBugs replied:
And in my other post I continued....saying that there are just times when babies die in childbirth, and pointing fingers and placing blame does no one any good. It's very sad that this innocent child died, but it's not our job to sit in judgement of the midwife or the parents. I'm sure they all feel horrible as it is, and the truth of it all is up for God to decide. KWIM?

ilovemybaby replied:
I am very aware of that. I am a Christian after all.
Doesn't mean that I don't get upset about things like everyone else. Being a mother does that to you.

mckayleesmom replied: Nobody is saying that this wasn't a horrible outcome. But based on our laws that we have in place right now....this woman didn't break it. It might be wrong and maybe there should be an exception in the law for cases like this...but there isn't one...so she didn't break the law. The doctor can't just guess that someone is in distress and take over meanwhile disregarding their medical instructions. In order to deam a person incompetant..you have to take it before a judge and shrinks and all that...In this case..there would have been no time.

What if that midwife had not listened to her, took her to the hospital and had a c-section performed against her will and the baby still died??? Then the mother would turn around and sue the midwife and the hospital for not obeying her instructions and she would probably claim that they were at fault for her babies death...Its a no win situation.

Also....I have never heard that you can't push for 2 hours...Ive heard of some that pushed much longer.

mckayleesmom replied: I have to add one more thing....I watch Baby Story on Tlc alot and I don't know how many times I have scene a doctor tell a mother that her baby was in distress and she should opt for a c-section, the mother refuse and ask to try a little longer pushing and most of them ended in a healthy vaginal birth.

Im sure that the parents and the midwife thought this would be one of those times......Its just a tragic thing that happened.

MyLuvBugs replied:
ITA! I pushed with Lorelei for over 2 1/2 hours before she decided to grace us with her presence. And I was NEVER offered a c-section.

We're all mothers here, but for me this story does not anger me at all. It just makes me sad for all parties involved. Like Brianne said, it's a double edged sword. A c-section may have come down to the same conclusion...a dead baby. So there is no right or wrong side, just a horrible outcome. But there is no changing the past, we all just have to learn from the mistakes made, and move on.

You're entitled to your opinion & feelings, as we all are, but the truth of the matter is she didn't break the law.

ilovemybaby replied: I know what you are saying. I guess I just see it differently. I don't see why any normal perfectly healthy baby should die during child birth. In this day and age. We have all that medical equipment. Equipment that tells us if the babies heart rate is dropping. Equipment to do ultrasounds with. Equipment to monitor the mothers heart beat. If a baby is perfectly healthy why should it die?
I can understand why babies die during childbirth when there is something wrong with them.
Back in the old days most babies and mothers died during child birth. But that was because they didn't have all the equipment and resources we do now. They had to just hope for the best. They could not do a c section if they wanted to.

I guess what I'm saying is, why did the baby die? If it was perfectly healthy, not distressed etc...
And if it was perfectly healthy then it was obviously distressed or it's heart rate was dropping.

I think they need to change procedure. I do not think any mother should be pushing for more than 1 hour. As I understand things, we don't get told to start pushing until we are physically ready. When our cervix is fully dialated right? So therefore, unless physically unable (due to too small a pelvis) there is no reason why a baby should not be delivered in a relatively short amount of time.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I delivered Abby in 14 minutes. I cannot see how it should take longer than one hour to push a baby out.
And I do not think I would even allow a doctor to force me to carry on pushing for that long. I would be asking for a c section. Not because I am lazy or don't want to put the effort in. Because I would be too scared that my baby would be in distress. I mean heck, I would be in distress pushing for that long. And if I'm distressed my baby probably is too.

Moreso, the specialist told the mother she needed to have a c section. This is where I go "huh". If you were told you needed a c section would you do it? If you were that specialist or midwife would you have continued trying to deliver the baby naturally?
I do not think I would. Even if it meant that the mother would charge me with something. I wouldn't want to feel guilty for the rest of my life thinking that if I had just not listened to her and done what was best for the baby, that that baby would still be here.



I just want to add that I knew that this would be a touchy topic. And I'm sorry if I have upset anyone. I am also glad that we could talk about this without getting heated.
There is something on 60 minutes or something in the next week about this very topic. About deliveries and things that go wrong. So I guess I will just see what they have to say and maybe I will feel differently afterwards who knows.

mckayleesmom replied:
I can understand what you are saying, but again...there is laws that protect this womans right to give birth the way she wanted to...and the Midwife just did what she was suppose to do in that situation. She is there to perform a service for this woman and she did her job....and she followed the laws of her job.

Also, the article doesn't mention this couples religious beliefs...there are some religions that DO NOT believe in medical intervention....No surgery, blood transfusions...etc.

Also, most woman that chose to have a midwife, homebirths, etc don't enter into it without alot of thought on how they want to deliver. They are much stronger then I could be ( I would want the drugs ). There are alot of women on here that chose midwives over doctors and some even homebirth. Im sure all of them thought it through and were and are determined to have the birth they want. This woman probably wanted that too. Is she wrong for that...No...Im sure she thought that her body and nature would bring her a healthy baby. There are alot of woman that chose to keep trying even when there babies are in distress because they think the doctors are jumping ahead of themselves.....And sometimes they are right and they end up delivering perfect babies vaginally. Like I said before...I have scene on A baby story alot of doctors insist that the mothers consider c-section and the woman asks for so much more time to try before that option and they end up delivering perfect babies...This woman probably thought that too. Also, it doesn't mention wether this woman had children before. Maybe she had a c-section before and it wasn't a good experience so she thought she would try harder to deliver this one vaginally. I know that for some reason...c-sections are a very tramatic experience that alot try to avoid.

I have had 2 cections....The first one was painful, but I chose to have a second one...mainly because I needed someone to be there for my daughter while I had my son....The second one scared the living crapola out of me....My blood pressure shot through the roof and they had to give me something to temporarily knock me out because I had an anxiety attack. With my first child..she was breach and in distress and the mother in me said...get her out...and I chose to, but it is a very frightening experience and this mom might have panicked.

I know that alot of people think that this was just a medical thing that went wrong, and someone needs to be liable, but we are not reading all the aspects of the situation...You don't know what was behind that mothers decision to keep trying...kwim?

Im sure that this mothers decision will haunt her forever and that midwife will never forget having to hand someone their dead child....Isn't that punishment enough?

Maybe the laws do need to be changed....but like I said...Its a no win situation...We want the innocent protected, but do we want our rights to our bodies taken away to? I know that I don't.

ilovemybaby replied: I understand what you are saying.

She was a first time mother. I don't know where I read that... either in that article or on the XTRA website.

Here in NZ midwives are no different to doctors really... is it different in the US?
I know there are Doulas. But our midwives are not doulas. They can do hospital births and home births. I had a hospital birth with Abby and I didn't have a doctor there. Just the midwife.

I don't think the midwife or mother should feel guilty for the rest of their lives or be punished. I guess my original post sounded pretty harsh. I just think that there needs to be some changes to the way things are done. I'm not saying take away mothers rights. But in the case of first time mothers... if a specialist says that she needs a c section the midwife and specialist should have the right to do what they think is best.
I am sure that midwife feels guilty because she listened to the mother (even though it was her job) instead of doing what she probably wanted to do.

I still think that as a mother to be any mother should put her childs life and health first. Yes, having a c section terrifies me too. But I wouldn't refuse to have one. If they said I needed one I would sign the form straight away and let them do what they think is best.
Maybe I would have been able to deliver the baby vaginally after all with no problems. But I wouldn't want to risk it.
And I am sure the mother of this baby feels guilty for refusing the c section.

We all learn from our mistakes. I am sure if she is presented with this same situation next time around she would have the c section.

~Roo'sMama~ replied:
I see what you are saying and I agree with you on one point - I think the mother should have had a c-section when she was told that she'd need one. But that's just my personal opinion and I can't judge her because I don't know all the details of what went on. I'm sure there are lots of times that women are told they need sections and they really don't - maybe this woman thought that this was the case with her too. And in my opinion the midwife's hands were tied she should not have been charged in the first place.

I definitely don't think that women should be made to have a c-section after an hour of pushing! You're lucky that you only had to push 15 minutes with your first, but for many it takes much, much longer, especially with the first. Like I said before, I pushed for 2 1/2 hours before Andrew finally came out, and it would have been longer if my doctor hadn't used suction to get him to come down over my pubic bone. He was a little stuck, but he wasn't distressed or in any danger. If he'd become distressed, my doctor would have told me I needed a c-section and I would have said go ahead. But pushing for a long time doesn't always mean trouble.

ilovemybaby replied: I'm sure it doesn't. But personally I wouldn't even want to take the risk.
Maybe I'm paranoid. Or maybe it's just because it only took 15 minutes with Abby that I know I would freak if it took much longer than that.
I would definitely go for other options first and try the forceps or suction. Both me and my sister were born with the help of forceps.
I wouldn't say I want a c section without trying those two things first. Because the idea of that big huge needle in my back freaks me out. As well as the stitches and pain afterwards. I'm a big sissy when it comes to pain.