"an abortion saved my life."

Post Reply New Topic

That really is despicable, psychohist. The woman chose to continue a high-risk pregnancy (as pro-lifers would have wanted her to) but eventually complications did set in and it became necessary to terminate. She tried to carry the child to term. She absolutely should not be blamed for that.

Given the specifics of this pregnancy, that just shows how irrational an extreme pro-life position can be when applied as a blanket policy.


Did you read the article? This woman was bleeding so heavily from the beginning of the pregnancy that she thought she was still getting her periods. They weren't "eventual" complications, they were severe complications from the very start. The woman chose to ignore those complications until after the very last minute, then blame others for her decisions.

Last edited by psychohist on 31 May 2011, 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

The hospital staff did nothing whatever to care for her? No pain medicine? No transfusions? She was at 20 weeks; was an emergency Cesarean not an option? There's gross incompetence on display in this story, but you don't need to bring up the pro-life/pro-choice debate to see it.

People do realize that often they don't have to do an abortion, they could actually deliver the infant (which would probably survive with medical treatment) and still save the life of the mother.

Yes, covering fire is standard military procedure. If you were ordered to say line civilians up and execute them, there isn't too much room for ambiguity in that and you can conscientiously object. If you can't handle the reality that the orders you take might cause collateral damage and the risk assessment of your higher ups trumps yours, then don't sign up.

Doctors are not infallable. They can screw up like anyone else. My interpretation is that in this situation, this mom wanted to try to keep this baby. Maybe she'd known others who had been through similar circumstances. Who knows? There's probably a lot more to this story out there, but we can only go by what's been written. But for the hospital not to do anything to give her relief or comfort is really sad & it's wrong too. It's a scary thought that she could have realistically bled to death at this hospital. That's terrifying to think about since we're all taught that that's where you go when you are hurt or sick. I can't imagine going through something like that without any help from health professionals who are trained to care for people in all kinds of needs. Placing blame won't solve anything here. The woman wanted to try to save the baby. Sometimes they can be saved, sometimes they can't. No one won here. The woman experienced tons of pain & it had to be pretty scary to go through bleeding like that. I've had a few bad experiences at hospitals & it's not a fun place for things to go wrong. On top of that, to not get any help even though you clearly need it, is just as wrong by the institution & those employed there. And after all she went through, the baby died. Her children nearly lost their mother, & a husband nearly lost his wife. I am glad she survived, so her children still have a mom. But it's sure not a happy ending for this family.

Tomboy

Natty_Boh is right, the hospital should have been sued, they potentially could have saved both lives.

That's what I think too. She was bleeding heavily when she got to the hospital; the fetus was already dying from lack of oxygen due to the placental abruption. However, she didn't know that yet, and she wanted to save the fetus, so she insisted on going to the maternity ward rather than to the trauma unit where they could save her.

I mean, let's think about it: why would an intern show her an ultrasound showing that her fetus was dying or dead? In all likelihood, it was to convince her that the fetus was a lost cause, so that she would give them permission to try to save her own life instead. Until she was convinced that the fetus was dead, she was probably trying to get them to save the fetus' life, which would most likely have resulted in both fetus and mother dying.

Painkillers? That was obviously what she was asking for, but she didn't need painkillers, she needed emergency surgery. They couldn't do it until she gave permission. And she obviously didn't ever give permission, because they eventually had to ask her husband for permission instead.


Doctors are not gods. Sometimes they can save you, sometimes they can't. And sometimes one doctor can save you when another doctor cannot.

In this case, the doctors, nurses, and hospital, once they got permission, moved the woman out of the maternity ward to a surgical wing and saved the her life, which is a lot better than what could have happened.


So why is everyone so quick to blame the doctors and the hospital, who managed to save the mother's life under difficult circumstances?

The earliest surviving preterm infant in the world, Amilla Miller, was born one day short of 22 weeks, and the vast majority of deliveries at that stage die. There just wasn't any way the 20 week fetus in this case would have survived. Realistically, it was just a choice between the fetus dying, or both the mother and the fetus dying.

Sometimes, a baby can't be saved in spite of valient effort. Even if this baby would have survived being brought into the world, there's no guarantee it would have lived long outside the womb. Also, I would say there's a great chance that had this child survived at all, it would not have been healthy. Sometimes, it's better to let a baby go than let it suffer.



My best guess it's because no one did anything for the mom while she was in pain, bleeding, & in labor. We all go to doctors & hospital expecting a certain amount of care. So when something like this happens, people are outraged. I recall hearing about a couple of incidences here in southern California, where people who were waiting for assistance in emergency rooms actually expired before being seen by a doctor. In one case, a hospital employee actually stepped around the deceased to sweep/mop the floor. That too, is pretty outrageous. But again, all people make mistakes, doctors/nurses/healthcare workers are no different. But the general public insists on giving these people Godlike powers, when they are just human.

There is one hospital (out of 4) which performs abortions in my county. It's about 20 minutes from me, and more than an hour from some of the people south of me. If you're a woman who's hemorrhaging and doesn't know what kind of help she needs, do you go to the nearest hospital and expect them to save your life, or do you go to the one an hour away because you 'might' need an abortion?

Yes, and I seriously doubt that particular doctor had consciously intended/hoped everyone else would also just "let nature take whatever course" after he had allegedly "refused to help" and had seemingly "walked away" ...

... and yes, and as stated in/by the OP, this kind of gross negligence on the part of today's medical fraternity surely does happen far too often. In my own case, and within the past year, I once had to get up and walk out of an emergency room AMA (Against Medical Advice) so I could return home and take the medication needed to bring my blood pressure back down while the nurses sat at their station reading magazines and chit-chatting ...

... and it was hospital practice to not call a doctor in until after some standing-order lab work had been done.

And as to the matter of military: It is not at all impossible (and neither is it unacceptable) to sign up and never bear an arm. In fact, it was less than 50 years ago when the US Navy took Puerto Ricans in only as stewards (kitchen and server help) and did not even allow them to handle a gun even just out on the rifle range during boot camp ... and I make that report with apology to anyone offended, and yes, I believe that policy has since changed.

Last edited by leejosepho on 31 May 2011, 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You mean the part where Superior Orders is a valid legal defense which lessens punishment?

Some advice: don't imply I'm illiterate and then direct-quote the portion which proves my point.

LKL, this situation may not be rare, but how often (if ever) is abortion the only solution? Obviously she could not carry to term. Obviously they were both going to die if nothing was done immediately. But was a C-section not an option? The article doesn't say either way, so the question remains - was it simply a situation of 'the baby is going to die anyway, so it doesn't matter'; or was her condition such that a C-section was out of the question - and if so, was it the hospital's fault for not acting sooner?

No, the baby wouldn't have survived the C-section. Not at 20 weeks. Or just maybe, he/she would have been the first to survive, just as some 22 week old baby was once the first...a chance was there anyways. But not with an abortion.

The question had been about "valid legal defense for a solider" and not whether same might receive a little extra consideration if s/he had been acting under a direct order.

They do emergency hysterectomies in OB, too, psychoist. An ED clerk at my hospital had a placental abruption during a planned delivery, and they shot her straight to OR and managed to save both lives (despite being 3 minutes from OR, she still ended up taking 6 units of blood).

So,basically, you think that she's lying.


First, painkillers and surgery are not mutually exclusive (duh). Second, the husband gave permission after she was too out-of-it from blood loss to respond because she was incapable of consent, not because she wouldn't consent.


Of course - which is why there are doctors on call. It is unconscionable that no one made more of an effort to contact the doctor who could save her. Note also that the doctor present didn't say that he could not do an abortion, but that he did not ever do abortions.