Jenna, okay, not misleading. How about oversimplifying?

I don’t think its an oversimplification. While there might have been other factors besides her refusal of the C-Section which lead to her child being taken away, we cannot know how many of these factors either run to the same source or are tainted. The mere suspicion of mental illness radically changes the way in which doctors interpret even normal behaviors. To borrow from Laing, once you’ve entered the asylum you will always be walking through it’s doors. Ultimately all of the write ups, all of the interpretations, all of the other factors which surround this case likely have a great deal to do with the interpretations staff made based upon the mother’s status as mentally ill and her decision the narcissistic injury they received as a result of this crazy woman refusing their good judgment.

I think you raise a very interesting and relevant point: How frequently are the rights of people with documented history of treatment for mental illness violated re: bodily autonomy, particularly in childbirth? Probably a lot.

Not probably a lot. The rights of the mad are universally and constantly violated. Right now I work at a county hospital in a major metropolitan area doing psych intakes and individual therapy. Abuse of patients is rampant and the ways in which the judgment and autonomy of patients is treated is frankly horrifying. The fact that the hospital called for a second consult, the fact that they couldn’t convince the first on-call doctor to play ball, is in itself strong evidence that the staff in question was out of control. Calling someone crazy is the first cudgel doctors reach for when someone gets uppity with them.

How might racism have factored into this incident?

Thats what I think you’re missing. The medicalization of childbirth for women who cannot afford higher levels of treatment, the high c-section rate that has a good deal to do with moving people out of valuable spaces quickly and generating more dollars for doctors and hospitals, the autonomy of bodies, the way the mad are abused, the racism that shades all of these interactions, you cannot separate these things. Its all part of the same game. These are different levels of power which are used to control bodies. Her anger was invalid because she was crazy or of color, her belief in discrimination was paranoia because staff didn’t see it (which provides more evidence for calling her crazy), her refusal of the c-section showed she wasn’t thinking properly because doctors thought it was the right idea and she isn’t a doctor. These are interrelated means of control.

The point was to force this woman to behave in a certain manner, to cause her to conform to the demands and expectations of people who have power, to maintain her utility to others. All the rest is just justification and props. Race provides one handhold for control, madness for another, gender for a third. Together they provide the justification that people in power used to punish this woman for disobedience.

I guess the reason I’m being so picky about this is that I think it is actually unfair to ignore that discussion and instead focus solely on the issue of women’s bodily sovereignty. Also at issue in this case: I think it’s clear from the subtext of the legal decision that V.M. and her family are people of color (there is talk of her paranoia about “societal discrimination,” and she claimed that nurses or social workers talked about her baby’s and her husband’s skin color). How might racism have factored into this incident?

When my mom was pregnant with my younger brother, she stopped taking anti-depressants. She gave birth via c-section. Reading this, I can’t help but wonder, what if she had refused?