Fetal Delivery of Drug: A Basis for Maternal Conviction - Essay Example

FETAL DELIVERY OF DRUG: A BASIS FOR MATERNAL CONVICTION INTRODUCTION The development of the fetus inside his or her mother's womb is a very criticalperiod. This intra-uterine development could either make or break the child's life, his attitude and his future values in life. Although the child is still unaware of everything surrounding him, his or her uterine environment would make a big impression on his personality. The mother and the fetus are linked together through the presence of the umbilical cord and the placenta. This bond makes possible the exchange of several matters and substances which are essential to the fetal development. However, even non-essential matters permeate inside the fetus' circulation. This happens when the mother is drinking alcohol, smoking or using illegal drugs during pregnancy. As vulnerable as he is, the child has no choice whether or not to take these materials since the membrane wherein exchange happens is only a cell thick (Pillitteri, 2007) and minute breaks could surely allow the entrance of materials inside the growing organism's body. With this occurrence, the use of illegal drugs, alcohol and even tobacco smoking is highly discouraged to pregnant women. In the early 1990s, there is a very limited attention in law regarding this case. Though many have been challenged and litigated for using these discouraged drugs while carrying a child inside their wombs, many mothers have been saved. However, the case of Jennifer Clarice Johnson was unique among them. THE CASE: FACTS AND ISSUES Among an estimated 375,000 children every year being delivered by mothers who use illegal drugs, very few have been tried and convicted. To prevent the dreadful future of these children, authorities have been arresting mothers whose newly-delivered children tested positive for illegal drugs and most cases are from South Carolina and Florida (Lewin, 1992). Jennifer Clarice Johnson is a twenty-three year old African-American woman residing in Florida, who was charged, tried and convicted with two-counts of delivery of illegal substance to a minor through the umbilical cord (Paltrow, 1992). In fact, Johnson was the first woman to be convicted of such case. The charges brought about to the penalty of one-year treatment sentence and fourteen years of probation. The case was filed on account of her two children, a son who was born 1987 and a daughter born 1989. Both children made a positive result for cocaine after being tested and made Ms. Johnson guilty on July the same year she gave birth to her youngest child- the daughter. Johnson admitted to the use of cocaine the day before her delivery of both children though both were delivered healthy and in full-term (Lewin, 1992). However, authorities pursued of trying her into courts which made her guilty of the case. The verdict however, gained media attention and several authorities of law gave their disappointed remarks regarding the ruling because of its unconstitutionality. THE LAW: PROCEDURES AND RULES OF LAW The Florida Supreme Court gave a guilty verdict on the Johnson, vs. State of Florida case due to several rules and laws which the court interpreted as applicable to the case at bar. First is that according to Section 893.13(1) (c) 1. Florida Statutes (1989), any person 18 years of age or older who uses a person under the age of 18 in the delivery of any controlled substance is unlawful (Johnson, vs. State of Florida, 1992). With this statute applied to Florida, the case of Johnson was formulated. After being convicted of the case filed against her, Johnson filed an appeal for the court to reverse the conviction casted upon her. And in the year 1992, the Florida Supreme Court has indeed reversed the ruling due to some more substantiated evidences and interpretations of law. In the Florida statute stated above, there is really a discrepancy in the use of the term delivery. Delivery in the statute unclearly refers to the delivery of drug through a mother's umbilical cord and that the legislative history does not manifest this path of usage. Furthermore, it is a law that in times when the clarity of the terms in the statute is susceptible to conflicting constructions, the statute shall be interpreted and construed most favorably to the accused, which in this case is Johnson. More than that, with the testimonies of several experts such as toxicologists, neonatologists and the attending obstetrician and pediatrician of the person accused, the case to reverse the ruling was further strengthened. First of all, there is no evidence that the exchange of cocaine was intended and meant by the mother where in that case, the taking of cocaine must be timed in order to transmit the cocaine to the bloodstream. Another is that the exchange of blood and other substances occur during the delivery and a few seconds after birth through the umbilical cord. Therefore, it can not be clearly determined as to how the cocaine derivatives were transferred since the umbilical cord was clamped within sixty to ninety seconds after the delivery. ANALYSIS The case was indeed a manifestation of the statute's vulnerability to differing constructions. The reversing of the convictions was the right thing because the case filed against Johnson was a complete misinterpretation of the statute. This only shows the opportunistic tendencies of people to challenge the vulnerability of the law. Furthermore, in the year where the case was tried, there was no complete evidence yet that the introduction of cocaine through the umbilical cord would cause developmental abnormalities since these are just assumptions and bases for study. Also with the conviction of mothers who suffers the same case as Johnson, the tendency of the mothers is not to seek pre and post natal care from the professionals. This is so because of their fear of being brought into a trial should authorities find out. Also, the conviction would further promote the unhealthiness of maternal and child health since these mothers and children are the persons in great need for professional healthcare. Given the case however, although the mother seeks professional care, there is no assurance that the mother would disclose her use of drugs in the duration of her pregnancy. The best thing that the statute and the government could do in this case is to further strengthen the programs on rehabilitation and treatment of these mothers rather than trying them into a court of law. Prosecuting mothers may have a tendency to scare mothers suffering from the same case but it would further endanger the life of the child since the mother may keep her drug addiction problems to herself and not seek the help of professionals. In making treatment programs for mothers, the results would be more productive not just to the mothers but even to the children affected and the lives of the children who might be affected in the near future. Through these programs, a healthier and more parent-oriented manner of solving this societal problem would be achieved. The participation of mothers would be achieved since the motivation is not due to the fear of being prosecuted and convicted but rather due to the willingness of the mother to successfully overcome her problems and to provide her child a healthier environment. CONCLUSION In these present times, studies are still being conducted so as to further strengthen view that mothers who use drugs during pregnancy could cause potential development problems to child. Though the possibilities are very likely, the most concerning fact in this research is the threat being posed to mothers who take illegal drugs during pregnancy. Since the laws are not perfect embodiments of the people's welfare and rights, mothers should be well-informed of the legal actions being taken in these cases. Furthermore, they should also know the laws which apply to their case so that they may fight for the unconstitutionality of this kind of interpretation of the law. Perhaps the best thing a mother can do regarding this scenario is to avoid taking these drugs and control themselves from doing so because it entails a very complicated mess if they continue to do so. The reversal of Johnson's verdict does not entirely mean that taking drugs during pregnancy is already legal and permitted because in terms of health and well-being, taking them is still and will always be highly discouraged. WORKS CITED Lewin, Tamar. (1992). "Mother Cleared of Passing Dugs to Babies." The New York Times. Retrieved 3 November 2007 from Paltrow, Lynn M. (1992). "Criminal Prosecutions against Women." Reproductive Freedom Project: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. Pillitteri, Adelle. (2007). Maternal and Child Health Nursing: Care For the Childbearing and Child Rearing Family. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: USA. (1992). "Jennifer Clarice JOHNSON, vs. the State of Florida". Retrieved 4 November 2007 from < http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/flajohnson.htm> Read More