©2026 The Daleys
I had a revelation today. While we felt very supported back in November, we have recently been more feeling on our own. Certainly, people want to care for us, and probably don't know how to do that. But, I think the bigger issue is that most people we know do not agree with our decisions about how the birth of our first (and second) child happened/will happen. So, that makes it hard for people to know how to talk with us, and they are, as Heather said, "holding their breath until this baby is born, then things will be more relaxed." There is petition circulating around Pittsburgh and elsewhere regarding our case in particular, but in a larger sense, who is responsible for making medical decisions. The petition will be delivered early next week, in hopes of affecting the district attorney's decision for this case. I was going to send it to people, but I am not sure who to send it to, as I think lots of our friends think that the doctor does always know best, and his opinion should outweigh your own in all cases. I think that is a pretty scary place to be, a place where the hospital is in charge and you have no say in what happens to you. Which is basically what is happening in this case. We signed an "informed consent" document, but apparently because doctors have people sign those forms all the time without really explaining things, "informed consent" no longer means anything legally.
As the coroner stated, "a woman in labor" (and apparently her husband by extension) "cannot make decisions rationally" and needs the care practioner to make all decisions for them. I guess that would lead to that all decisions are the medical practitioner's fault. Thus, know we know why the doctors are scared about the malpractice suits, since they have brought upon themselves this conundrum: they know everything, and don't allow patients to take responsibility for any decisions, but yet, the doctors don't want the responsibility either.
So, we are left with the problem, the state can sue whoever they want, parents or provider because everyone is shirking their responsibility to be accountable for their decisions.
If you don't think parents should be able to make decisions regarding their own care, you should think about what the alternative is.
Prayer requests:
Continued prayers for us to trust God's guidance in our lives, and for our faith as we seek Him.
Praise and thanks for the group of families in Pittsburgh who are uniting in support of us and Judy
For legal decisions, both by the district attorney and the Friends of Judy as they try to figure out what is the best course of action.
That we would be able to understand our friends, and that our friends would be able to understand us
These songs were sung at the memorial service, and have been very meaningful to us
Thanks to the writers and composers for providing a means of God's grace with these words.
Copyright ©2003 Linda Wightman
When they put the sugar back into baby food, I should have known it was a bad sign.
Progress is often a tidal creek, not a river. Advancement is not inevitable. We gain in one era, or in one area, and lose in another.
The late 1970's and early 80's were good years for having babies in America. Women had rediscovered that childbirth is a good thing, a normal function, and were dragging their doctors along with them. Hospitals scrambled to keep up.
We were the rebels, the revolutionaries. The children of the 60's grown up. Our parents had been cheated by medical and cultural "advancement", giving birth under anesthesia, flat on their backs on a delivery table, their legs unnaturally elevated. Labor was often artificially induced, and the cesarean section rate was high. Once born, the babies were whisked away to nurseries, tended by professional nurses and fed commercial formula. As soon as possible their diets included solid food-commercial baby food, loaded with sugar and salt to suit the mother's taste.
A number of you have asked why is this happening, ie. how did the district attorney, coroner, homicide detective and police officers get involved in the first place. Good question. One might wonder...
Whenever 911 is called involving a baby, they send police officers along with medical support, to investigate a possible child abuse situation. So, Heather and our midwife were separated and questioned by a homicide detective. (Heather was naked, cold and hungry, but the police refused her requests, except to allow her to get a towel to cover herself)
After Isaac died, the coroner performed an autopsy, as is required by law, whenever the cause of death is not evident. An inquest was then done, to determine whether or not a crime had been committed, and whether there was someone to blame for it or not.
The coroner said that our midwife had been "grossly negligent" in her care of Heather and Isaac, and therefore should be charged criminally. Fortunately, much of the evidence that was presented at the hearing was extremely biased at best, and outright lies at worst. During an inquest, there is not an opportunity for the "defense" to cross-examine, as an inquest isn't supposed to have a prosecution and defense, but everybody there knew which person was on which side. Due to the incompetence of the district attorney and the coroner's office, many witnesses were not able to attend the hearing as they had not been told about the hearing the first time, and then the second time, they were subpeonead 12 hours in advance of the hearing.
The coroner passes along his recommendation to the district attorney, (who was the prosecutor in the inquest), and the district attorney decided whether or not he thinks that he can win a criminal trial, as he doesn't want to lose a trial, because that looks bad for him politically, and as the he is hoping to be elected judge someday, he is very conscious of the publicity that he gets.
The district attorney and coroner fully understand that the only witnesses to this event believe that no crime was committed, but we live in a country where our liberties are slowly being eroded away as time goes on, and we will soon have no rights to make our own decisions, if they conflict with the popular beliefs of the times. Hm... seems a little similar to Ayn Rand's, "Atlas Shrugged". Different issues, but similar in terms of the political/social/liberty issues.