10 ms·
Arizona inducing the labor of pregnant prisoners against their will
- tpmx 4y agoFor anyone who like me had no clue about what labor induction is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_induction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_induction
- LeifCarrotson 4y agoTo save others a click, this is about artificially starting the birth of a baby, not about a 13th-amendment prison slavery complaint. Which is similarly vile, but another topic. > "They induce us all now so that we don't go into labor in prison." I'd be curious what the power structure looks like between the prison medical staff and these women's primary care providers/obstetricians. At some point, a small number of women will need advice from a doctor that if they haven't begun labor naturally, they should get it induced. But definitely not universally 39 weeks, and definitely not to someone who primarily answers to the prison rather than to the patient. Inducing every pregnant woman for scheduling convenience is a terrible human rights violation if you place anything close to a reasonable value on the health of the mother and the baby compared to the convenience of prison guards. The baby will be ready when the baby's ready, an inability to schedule that to something tighter than a 3-4 week window is just a fact of biology that the state needs to accept.
- tpmx 4y agoThis is not a great summary of that wikipedia article.
- LeifCarrotson 4y agoNo, sorry, it's a summary and a quote from the original article. I merely tried to distinguish between "Inducing birth labor" and "Inducing slave labor," as the parent poster seemed confused by the ambiguity; the Wikipedia article merely tells you which of these two commonly known forms of induced labor the original article is focused on.
- tpmx 4y agoNo, you're obviously not even trying to be neutral. You did write "To save others a click, ...".
- kadoban 4y ago> I'd be curious what the power structure looks like between the prison medical staff and these women's primary care providers/obstetricians. I'd be shocked if prisoners in the US are allowed access to doctors outside of the prison medical staff (or whoever they're outsourcing care to).
- devilbunny 4y agoPrison medical staff are not obstetricians. They're usually family practitioners. And while old-time family doctors used to deliver babies, most newer grads have minimal experience because the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance for delivering one baby means they just won't ever do it. General medical issues, not childbirth. In my experience, prisons usually have a contract with one hospital or system in the state to care for issues too complex for prison healthcare.
- Karawebnetwork 4y agoI asked ChatGPT to summarize this page. "Labor induction is a medical procedure that stimulates childbirth and delivery. It can be done with pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical methods and is estimated to be used in about 25% of pregnant women in Western countries. Medical reasons for inducing labor include postterm pregnancy, intrauterine fetal growth restriction, health risks to the mother, premature rupture of the membranes, premature termination of the pregnancy, fetal death in utero, twin pregnancy after 38 weeks, and certain health conditions in the mother. Methods of inducing labor include medication, mechanical or physical approaches such as artificial rupture of membranes or membrane sweeping, and intrauterine catheters. Medications used for induction include prostaglandins, synthetic oxytocin, and mifepristone. Non-pharmaceutical methods include acupuncture, herbal remedies, and sexual intercourse. Inducing labor at or after term is generally believed to improve outcomes for newborns and reduce the number of cesarean sections." (I did not proof read any of this, take with a grain of salt)
- blhblah12345 4y agoI asked ChatGPT to summarize how to remove chatgpt from the comments of every single technical story on hacker news. Didn't give me an answer.
- skymast 4y ago[flagged]
- snapcaster 4y agoI don't believe you. I bet if you really thought hard about it you could at least see the problems that other people are concerned about
- mlyle 4y agoIn general, we don't let the state make arbitrary medical decisions for people just because they're incarcerated and it would be a little more convenient for the state.
- bdcravens 4y agoWith some exceptions, at all levels of incarceration, inmates are able to refuse medical care.
- sidlls 4y agoPrisoners have rights to be treated humanely, and generally that is understood to include personal autonomy with regard to medical decisions.
- jacquesm 4y agoBeing a ward of the state doesn't make you property of the state and doesn't mean that doctors all of a sudden can act against the best interests of their patients, both of them in this case. Really, this is revolting at every level and if you don't see the problem then that too is a problem.
- taco_emoji 4y ago> Being a ward of the state doesn't make you property of the state They pretty much are, though, legally. Prisoners are Constitutionally permitted to be subject to involuntary servitude.
- jacquesm 4y ago
- abracadaniel 4y agoTangential, but since Arizona passed a law recognizing personhood at conception, it would seem they'd be guilty of unlawful detainment of the fetus if they keep pregnant women as prisoners.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dahfizz 4y ago[flagged]
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago[flagged]
- outside1234 4y agoHonestly it is a pretty interesting argument. Again, they are arguing this, not the OP.
- dahfizz 4y agoNo, its not. Its an r/IAmVeryClever comment. You may as well accuse mothers themselves as unlawfully imprisoning their children against their will, either born or unborn.
- arcticbull 4y agoThe OP was saying the idea that personhood begins at conception is a poor model of reality. They are suggesting that we are picking and choosing attributes of personhood to meet our preconceived conclusions around abortion rather than making a rational assessment. They are falsifying the premise by showing its natural extension as applied to this situation. > You may as well accuse mothers themselves as unlawfully imprisoning their children against their will, either born or unborn. I think the OP would agree.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LetsGetTechnicl 4y ago[flagged]
- nathanaldensr 4y agoSometimes the answer to a problem is not the complete opposite thing.
- jrochkind1 4y agoTrue, but also, sometimes the answer to a problem is getting rid of the thing that is the problem.
- gruez 4y agoKeyword here is "sometimes". Is there a reason to believe that this is such an instance?
- maxfurman 4y agoIt's hard to quantify the benefits of prisons, since they primarily prevent the incarcerated from committing further crimes. The harms of prisons, on the other hand, actually happen. TFA here being just one horrific example, but one doesn't have to look far to find examples of inmate abuse either in the present or historically. So "Should we abolish prisons?" boils down to "are the very real harms of prisons still less than the theoretical harms prevented by prisons?" I'm not confident about either side of that argument but it's worth considering.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y agoI advocate for building more low-level prisons because they're vastly cheaper and better suited for people who've committed minor crimes. I get more pushback on this from the anti-prison crowd than when I advocate for more maximum security prisons. It has started to feel like they're for anything that makes prisons unworkable, even if it kills prisoners in the meantime and leaves others on the street, than reforming the system because they wouldn't be able to argue against a humane and proportional prison. Prisons suck but they suck less than it did without them. Without alternative ways to handle the preexisting problems prison abolition is a step backwards.
- sbenj 4y agoThis is monstrous. No other word for it. That people can justify this in the name of some sick version of bureaucratic efficiency... Who are the people that go along with implementing this?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vorpalhex 4y agoI'm surprised that you feel that strongly on induction of labor which is routine, very safe and used frequently. My wife was induced to help reduce the need for emergency c section. Induction is mostly boring (you spend a long time hooked up to an IV).
- AaronFriel 4y agoDid you see the "against their will" portion?
- vorpalhex 4y agoThey are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. If you are a prisoner and want to die of eg cancer instead of seeking treatment that is not an option generally up to you. The state will treat you, whether or not you want it. If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter. Your freedom to make subpar decisions or have deeply personal choices (eg a water birth or use a birthing center) is curtailed when you are in prison.
- caconym_ 4y agoI am unsure of whether this comment is meant to justify arbitrary human rights abuses against prisoners on the basis of their status as such, or simply to state that prisoners' human rights are indeed commonly abused. Could you please clarify your position in this regard? If the latter, I think you will find that it does not really need to be said. Most people around here are likely familiar with the abuses of the carceral state.
- sneak 4y agoIt seems to me like this is a crime. Why are there not more formalized procedures and criminal penalties for those in the justice system for the state choosing to turn a blind eye to documented crimes within its ranks?
- taco_emoji 4y agoPrisoners in the United States have zero human rights whatsoever. In fact, the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery) specifically carves out an exception for criminals.
- worik 4y agoNot zero. They can be, and often are, enslaved. But there arestill constitutional rights that apply
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- t-writescode 4y agoPrisoners have *several* rights. A simple Google search reveals this.
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoIt is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues).
- lelanthran 4y ago> It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). Since this is so highly voted, maybe also note that the key is "before term", which is not the case as far as I can tell in the article. Not that I don't find the practice repugnant, but let's not steer off into outright FUD when blasting our moral outrage.
- FireBeyond 4y ago37 weeks is "before term" for inducement, in at least 2 of these patients. "Normal" induction (i.e. absent specific reasoning) is at 39 weeks or beyond. So some outrage is, in fact, justified.
- devilbunny 4y agoWe also don't have any medical history on these patients. Maybe it's policy, maybe they just heard it that way. It's a risk/benefit ratio; if the mother hits certain criteria for pregnancy-induced hypertension or (worse) preeclampsia, the only definitive therapy is delivery. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there's not enough information to be sure.
- FireBeyond 4y agoCertainly. But what we do also know is all three women in this article consented to the release of their medical records, and the newspaper's review of those records did not find any condition warranting induction. And while journalistic failures of fact-checking, even egregious ones, have occurred, this is one that could be so easily verified with even the most cursory look. It doesn't require an obstetrician or physician, hell, an EMT with less than 200 hours of medical education is taught that, as you say, one of the biggest risks in late term pregnancy is preeclampsia. Even a quick Google search would say as much. Given that this is the core of the story, it would take Herculean amounts of Wikipedia-esque "Assume Good Faith" with respect to the Arizona DOC having concerns that warranted these interventions that could be discovered with less than a minute of review of their medical records. Also vile, that the women were then billed for the cost of their inductions, despite them being in custody. Arizona seems to want it both ways (which is unsurprising, given that they have a pretty horrific history in such things - until last year, prisoners in active delivery were still required to be handcuffed to beds and still kept in shackles, through birth itself) - you're a ward of the state (which generally _doesn't_ remove medical autonomy), so we'll make your medical decisions, and then we'll bill you for our choices.
- taxicabjesus 4y agoMy observations of Arizona's approach to criminal justice leads me to believe it's mostly a make-work program. Many of my passengers were deteriorated by their time in Arizona's jails and prisons. While there are a few violent people who need to be segregated, most people do not magically get fixed by being locked up. Read somewhere that people begin to develop psychological problems after 7 days of imprisonment. Many of my passengers had cases of PPSD: Post-Prison Stress Disorder. My one passenger exemplifies the futility of Arizona's system of criminal justice (link in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34157865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34157865 ). He only had the one charge (drug paraphernalia - it was supposedly someone else's pipe) from... 2013 or so. He just can't get off probation because he bails himself out and can't show up for his next court date. I think he's terrified of being killed by the jail. His diabetes is uncontrolled, and the jail implements a starvation diet (which is why I asked /u/ddtaylor if the food was adequate in his AMA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34158365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34158365 ). His blood sugar is dropped by the forced time-release insulin injections, but the jail routine doesn't allow for him to check his blood sugar level or provide adequate amounts of edible food. Three of my female passengers were definitely harmed by 'justice'. One got sent to prison for 5 years for having shared a single opioid pill with a friend (circa 2009), another had substance abuse problems that she couldn't shake. This AZCentral article talks about Arizona's minimum-security prison in Perryville. My passenger who got 'moody' at menopause was sent there for her 3rd DUI. She tried to stay sober after being released, but then life happened and she hadn't learned how to cope. She's doing fine now, no thanks to her time getting 'corrected'. I have all my notes - ought to write a book. This article says the babies are separated from their mothers after 72 hours, as provided for by Arizona's version of a 'Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act'. But ... 72 hours is not enough to get a child off to a good start in life. Now that we have GPS trackers, there's no reason to not create a more compassionate system of supervision for mothers in the system. If not for them, for their children. Congressman Thomas Massie (MIT Alumni) said he'd read all the quote-tweets of his query: "If you were in Congress, what would your priorities be for 2023?". I put a little effort into a thread about the predicaments of abundance and how Arizona's biggest job project is its criminal justice system: https://twitter.com/TaxiCabJesus/status/1609412832227110914 https://twitter.com/TaxiCabJesus/status/1609412832227110914 (minor edits - punctuation, mostly)
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago> NaphCare spokesperson said one incarcerated patient was induced “per hospital specialist’s orders as a maternal-fetal safety precaution due to a pre-existing condition.”
- DoingIsLearning 4y agoIrrespective of indication you still need informed consent for a medical act like an induction (unless the patient is unable to consent). The 'against their will' bit is the critical part.
- spicymaki 4y ago[flagged]
- sschueller 4y agoYou can only sweap it under the rug for so long until there is no more room under there...