The case of Melissa Ann Rowland is alarming. She sits in a Salt Lake City jail, accused of murdering one of her twin fetuses because she refused to have a Caesarean section when doctors told her the twins were in danger. While prosecutors call her "callous", with "a depraved indifference to human life," she claims she wasn't told a C-section was necessary.

Prosecutors say Rowland refused the surgery because she didn't want to have a scar. But, she had already had two previous C-sections, so one must wonder about that charge. The entire distasteful case, made worse by her history of mental illness, raises critical questions about both prosecutorial and medical ethics.

Who should have the right to determine what medical treatment a pregnant woman must have? While we can wish Melissa Rowland had followed a doctor's advice to have a C-section, if in fact she received that advice, does government have the right to force her to have an unwanted surgery? What about a pregnant woman whose religious beliefs prohibit medical care? Should she be forced to have surgery or a blood transfusion or an induced labor against her faith if that would save her baby? Whose rights are paramount-those of a woman or a fetus?

Melissa Rowland's choice raises difficult medical ethics issues, but it should not result in a murder charge. If she can be charged with murder in the death of her twin, will a woman who is 8 months pregnant and driving carelessly be charged with murder if her fetus dies in an automobile accident she caused? What about a woman who smokes during her entire pregnancy and puts her baby at risk? Should she be forced to stop smoking? Should a prosecutor bring child abuse charges against a woman who smokes or drinks or uses drugs during pregnancy? And, what if I want to have my baby at home, but a difficult delivery results in her death. Does that make me a murderer? Certainly not.

Here's what's so alarming. If Melissa Rowland can be charged with murder, government is determining how a woman must behave and what she must do when she is pregnant. No government has the right to dictate to a woman, or anyone else for that matter, what medical treatment she must receive or how she must live her life. If Melissa Rowland can be convicted of murder for a medical decision she made, where will this stop?

I am horrified when a child dies because her parents choose prayer over lifesaving medical treatment. But, in this country, freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. If religious faith causes a parent to make a choice that I think results in a child's death, should a prosecutor charge that parent with murder? Though I find this an extremely difficult and painful question, my answer is still no. Because I passionately believe that government does not have the right to dictate personal decisions or invade anyone's personal or religious privacy.

As for the prosecutor in this case, one must wonder what he is trying to prove. That a woman who makes a bad decision about birth is a murderer? Or that his own moral and political views are more important than the law? In any case, this is inappropriate behavior for a prosecutor, who should focus his energy on convicting real criminals rather than pushing a personal agenda.

This case is important to all of us. If Mary Ann Rowland is convicted of murder, any one of us could be face criminal charges for the medical choices we make for ourselves or our families. We could be charged with murder for choosing to take a brain dead relative off life support or for refusing to subject a severely disabled infant to questionable, but perhaps lifesaving, surgery. In the realm of medical decisions, government should not be able to tell us what to do. And, government certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute us for making medical decisions we believe are right for us.