Mother to sue hospital for refusing to release her placenta
Categories: Pregnancy & birth, Fun & activities, Mommy wars
A woman in Las Vegas is suing the hospital where she gave birth to her child because the hospital is refusing to release her placenta to her, and she had been planning to ingest it for its nutrients. Anne Swanson, 30, is an earthy mama who google searches reveal is an advocate for natural hypnobirth, and before the April birth of her second child by emergency C-section, she had planned to have her placenta dried, ground into powder and placed into capsules for the treatment of post-partum depression. The theory behind this non-traditional practice is that excess hormones build up in the placenta during pregnancy, and new mothers can take the pills and replenish depleted hormones and control PPD.
Swanson says the hospital has told her the organ was contaminated. "Like any other body part, placentas contain a lot of blood, which can carry infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis,'' said Twinkle Chisholm, a spokeswoman for the hospital. "We take great measures to prevent disease transmission.'' Swanson thinks that is ridiculous, because she does not have HIV or hepatitis, and believes she is really just a victim of intolerance for non-traditional beliefs. "I can keep my baby, but I can't have the link that connected us,'' Swanson said. "This was my last pregnancy. I am not going to have another placenta. To me, it was a big deal to have it, whether I was using it for medicinal reasons or planting it.''
Swanson is planning to sue the hospital, though concerns over legal fees have her considering the ACLU and Planned Parenthood for support. The placenta is scheduled to be destroyed tomorrow. There are no state or federal laws regulating whether hospitals should or should not return placentas to mothers. The hospital has not explained why Swanson's placenta is contaminated more than any other placenta, and it sounds to me like they are treating the matter this way because they think it's weird. It is a little weird, but I don't see how it's any of the hospital's concern what she wants to do with it. It came out of her body, wrapped around her daughter after sustaining her for so many months. If she wants to eat it, or bury it her garden, or wear it draped over her breasts during a naked solstice moon dance, I don't see why she shouldn't be able to do whatever she would have been able to do had she given birth at home according to her wishes.
Swanson says the hospital has told her the organ was contaminated. "Like any other body part, placentas contain a lot of blood, which can carry infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis,'' said Twinkle Chisholm, a spokeswoman for the hospital. "We take great measures to prevent disease transmission.'' Swanson thinks that is ridiculous, because she does not have HIV or hepatitis, and believes she is really just a victim of intolerance for non-traditional beliefs. "I can keep my baby, but I can't have the link that connected us,'' Swanson said. "This was my last pregnancy. I am not going to have another placenta. To me, it was a big deal to have it, whether I was using it for medicinal reasons or planting it.''
Swanson is planning to sue the hospital, though concerns over legal fees have her considering the ACLU and Planned Parenthood for support. The placenta is scheduled to be destroyed tomorrow. There are no state or federal laws regulating whether hospitals should or should not return placentas to mothers. The hospital has not explained why Swanson's placenta is contaminated more than any other placenta, and it sounds to me like they are treating the matter this way because they think it's weird. It is a little weird, but I don't see how it's any of the hospital's concern what she wants to do with it. It came out of her body, wrapped around her daughter after sustaining her for so many months. If she wants to eat it, or bury it her garden, or wear it draped over her breasts during a naked solstice moon dance, I don't see why she shouldn't be able to do whatever she would have been able to do had she given birth at home according to her wishes.
Recent Posts
- Weekend Fun and Games (7/03/2009)
- Kids and Extracurriculars - When Do You Let Them Quit? (7/03/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (7/03/2009)
- Lush Lashes (7/03/2009)
- Abigail Breslin Makes $13 a Week (7/03/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jacinda 5-10-2007 @ 10:37AM
Even in her very liberal court circuit, it's well established that a patient has no property rights in body parts. It will likely be dismissed on summary judgment.
Reply
Ginny 5-10-2007 @ 10:47AM
I'm still cracking up at the spokeswoman's name.
Reply
Jessica 5-10-2007 @ 11:05AM
I think she should be free to do what she wants with it.
Reply
dutch 5-10-2007 @ 11:12AM
it does seem like twinkle ought to be the one munching on placenta pie.
jacinda, are you a lawyer in nevada, or are you just flinging broad baseless conclusions?
Reply
Mel 5-10-2007 @ 11:40AM
Actually, I'm a law student, and from what I've read in many of my classes, Jacinda is right on. Do a google search for "Moore v. Regents of the University of California." (793 P.2d 479) It's the leading case in the patients' rights (or lack thereof) of discarded body tissues.
Reply
BabyLove77 5-10-2007 @ 11:41AM
do you have to bring a dish to the naked solstice moon dance? a cassarole, mabye brownies?
Reply
Sandyone 5-10-2007 @ 12:59PM
They should have just made an exception for her. It would have been a whole lot easier.
I wonder if she had made plans ahead of time.
My midwife left the whole bag of bio-hazard at my house. My husband had to bring the thing to the hospital himself. She was supposed to take it away, but let's just say that she was an NHS midwife who wasn't so happy with her job anymore.
I've got issues with body parts. The hospital can take them out and then make a fortune by giving them to someone else. They charge everybody and all they are is the middle man.
A long time ago, I'd heard or read that the hospital takes placentas and makes pills of them. Probably, it was that they sold the placentas to the vitamin company.
Most people don't want their placenta back, so the hospital would have been smarter to just toss the thing in a ziploc (double bagged, of course!) and given it to Dad to take home.
In the meantime, I would think she's going for a court order to at least have it frozen until a decision is reached. The hospital shouldn't be in any rush to destroy it.
Reply
LMTT 5-10-2007 @ 1:20PM
"served with some fava beans and a nice chianti"
Reply
Dodie 5-10-2007 @ 2:55PM
I am with you #2 (Twinkle) come on people don't give your children names like this. What are you high when you think of these names. OK, back to the placenta. It's hers and she should be able to do with it what she wants. I'm so sick of Hospitals and Doctor's give it a rest already!
Reply
niyachen 5-10-2007 @ 3:06PM
I agree that she should be allowed to do with it what she wishes, but from a risk managment stand point the hospital is doing the right thing.
Unless She specifically asked to have the palcent back, the hospital would not have taken precaution against contaminating it. They would have treated it like any other palcenta, just another biological hazard. With biohazards, hospitals only try to stop it from contaminating something, not stop it from becoming contaiminated. What if it was contaiminated and she became infected? It would then be the hospital's fault (rightly) for giving her something that was not garenteed safe, especially for human consumption.
The lesson learned here is if you have a unique request then tell the hospital before hand. If they refluse then you have grounds for the law suit. That is why they ask you if you have a birth plan.
Reply
dutch 5-10-2007 @ 3:17PM
I believe she did tell the hospital before she went in for her c-section.
and Mel, I'm a lawyer. I don't claim to know the common law of Nevada. I've read Moore, I'm just not sure it's precedent in a Nevada Court or if it applies to a placenta. I'm not sure it is a "body part" and it seems to me there would be some religions that might object to hospitals confiscating certain body parts that according to their religion, should be saved for whatever reason. Swanson may just be a hippie, but it seems like she ought to have a right to her baby's placenta.
Reply
Jen 5-10-2007 @ 4:09PM
Is the picture accompanying this article a photo of an actual real-live placenta? Because I so wasn't expecting to see that on my computer today.
Reply
jacinda 5-10-2007 @ 9:30PM
dutch - shut the fuck up. i know the law. and just because you don't agree, don't accuse me of making "baseless claims." because, although the argument may not fly in court and Moore v. Regents may not apply, it IS a valid legal argument. stop insulting your readers. this is how you get paid.
Reply
brandi 5-11-2007 @ 3:08AM
well she can do whatever she wants with it as far as i'm concerned but i just have to say in my opinion that is sooooo gross! But to each their own!
Reply
Terry 5-11-2007 @ 5:38PM
to me, here's the interesting(or sad) point about the conundrum. if the hospital doesn't give it to her, they get sued. if they give it to her and she gets sick from it, the hospital can also get sued.
guess who benefits either way?
can you spell s-c-u-m-b-a-g - er - i mean l-a-w-y-e-r ?
(and all you lawyers on this thread, don't bother giving me any s#@t for my comments - it's the absolute truth)
Reply
Jacinda 5-12-2007 @ 10:54AM
Haha Terry. Do you think lawyers try cases for the hell of it. They gave CLIENTS who approach and hire them to resolve a dispute. The attorney is merely the conduit. So be bitter at PEOPLE WHO SUE not the attorneys who take the cases.
Reply
Jacinda 5-12-2007 @ 10:55AM
have, not gave
Reply
Kimi 8-06-2007 @ 3:31PM
She wanted to eat her placenta?
Reply