"an abortion saved my life."

Post Reply New Topic

@ Natty-Boh, I have spoken with pro-lifers (I am not claiming that you are one) who believe that any removal of a fetus, dead or alive, is 'abortion.' A neighbor of mine, who was in her 90's when I knew her more than a decade ago, had a fetus die in utero back when abortions were still illegal and proceeded to 'give birth' to pieces of it for the next several months because no one would 'abort' it.

Uck. I have never even heard of anyone who thought that - but I'm sure they (her doctors) had heard of septic shock?

No, and it is fine for you to know better than to blame a midwife ...

... and yet in fact, I do happen to believe the actions of one particular midwife actually did play into one of my daughter's miscarries. In any case, the point here is that the woman in your initial post who had suffered unnecessarily at a given hospital did not necessarily suffer as she did just because a certain doctor either could not (unqualified) or would not (conscientiously) perform an abortion. And since you apparently know whatever you do about midwifery, I would tell you both of my daughters have since had complication-free VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarian) deliveries!

You should read more carefully yourself. At no point does the article say she asked for an abortion upon arriving at the hospital. If she had, she could have signed the consent forms immediately, even while they were getting the appropriate doctor.

Even if that vanishingly small chance means the mother is likely to die?

That was basically the situation here. The fetus's best chance was for the doctors to hope both mother and fetus could survive for a few more weeks, the mother bleeding profusely from the placental abruption, before taking the fetus out. That would have provided the fetus some microscopic chance of surviving - but the mother's chance of dying would have been much larger.


It absolutely is in dispute. If the hospital staff had failed, the mother would not have been alive to write the article. She should be thanking them for saving her life.

They could have induced labor to get the baby out and give the baby medical attention, it would not have added any additional risk to the mother.

Quoted for future reference.

I typically speak against "elective abortion" at least as a too-late form of oopsie-poopsie -- "Ah, s**t." -- birth control, but I would almost be willing to outright suggest abortion in that kind of life-threatening case.

Induced labor can take days when the woman is very far preterm. That would likely have killed this woman given how she was bleeding.

And at 20 weeks, the fetus would have died anyway, even with excellent medical attention.

The doctor that refused to treat her in that condition should be put on trial for negligence and some sort of attempted murder charge.

When that woman came in bleeding and literally dying slowly because of what had gone wrong it ceased to be an abortion and became a triage situation.

Let's assume the doctor considers performing an abortion morally equivalent to opening fire on a random passer-by and killing them. Or let's say it's closer to that ethical dilemma of three people tied to some tracks and only one person tied to the diverted tracks as a train approaches; not acting kills three while pulling the lever kills one. Humans tend to feel less uncomfortable about letting fate take its course than in actively choosing who lives and who does (i.e., triage), rejecting a consequentialist logic for an imperative/deontological/Kantian one.

If we let doctors refuse standard medical care on the basis of personal belief, where do we draw the line? Some pharmacists claim a right to refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill or even birth control in general. Can a surgeon refuse to treat a person whose cardiac arrest or lung cancer may be attributable to smoking, a lifestyle choice the surgeon strongly disapproves of? A Hindu doctor who disapproves of eating beef? Jehovah's Witnesses' rejection of most of modern medicine? Scientologists' rejection of psychiatry when confronted with a psychotic patient brought to the ER?

Really? You think so? You think she looked at the bleeding and thought, "Oh, I know, when I get someone to come to take care of my children and arrange transportation to the nearest hospital, I'll be sure to ask specifically for a particular medical procedure so that I can sign the consent forms straight away in case they leave me languishing to the point I'm incapable of signing a consent?"

I suppose someone who suddenly has a headache and suffers paralysis on one side should be sure to ask for a clot-busting drug when they get to the hospital? And if they don't ask for it when they get there, and deteriorate to the point that they can't consent, they shouldn't expect to be given one later on because they didn't ask for it and sign the consent form?

You can't be serious.

LOL Orwell, why even bother?

Um... and also if you read the article it's pretty clear that she did ask for an abortion, but was refused. Why else would the comment that the physician on call didn't do abortions be there?


You've stumped me on that one.

@Orwell -

I'm not sure if the comment about reading the article was directed at me. But, correct me if I'm wrong, the article doesn't say specifically that she asked for an abortion when she got the hospital. She made reference to the fact that no one on call performed abortions - but nothing about saying to them "I need an abortion".

She may have, she may not have. There's not enough information there to determine it one way or the other, as far as I can see. In any case, she shouldn't have HAD to ask, nor should she have had the burden of asking for a consent form to sign. If the doctors knew she needed an abortion, why didn't they proactively seek her consent? (The argument here is directed at psychohist.)

re: The quoting for future reference. I just imagined that you see how wrong his statement is. I imagined you'd want to use his statement in a rebuttal at some point in the future. Maybe I'm wrong - but it made me laugh aloud because I was imagining the futility of pointing out his error, and the hijinks that would ensue.

No, it was in addition to your comments, but directed largely in response to psychohist. Sorry for not making that clearer.


No, it does not explicitly say that, but it is quite clear from the context. How else would she even know that no one on call performed abortions? And also the fact that she had discussed the issues around a high-risk pregnancy with her physician already and was aware that abortion might become necessary.


I agree with you that she should not have had to direct physicians in diagnosing her condition and prescribing appropriate care. The only inference I can draw from the article is that it was apparent she needed an abortion, and the physicians on call at the hospital were not doing anything to provide that care.


You are correct.