"an abortion saved my life."
Stories like this are not rare, unfortunately.
I was taking an afternoon nap when the hemorrhaging started while my toddler napped in his room when I woke up to find blood gushing upward from my body. Though I didn't know it at the time, I was experiencing a placental abruption, a complication my doctor had told me was a possibility. My husband was at work, so I had to do my best to take care of me and my toddler on my own. I managed to get to the phone and make arrangements for both of my children before going to a Chicago hospital.
Everyone knew the pregnancy wasn't viable, that it couldn't be viable given the amount of blood I was losing, but it still took hours for anyone at the hospital to do anything. The doctor on call didn't do abortions. At all. Ever. In fact, no one on call that night did. Meanwhile, an ignorant batch of medical students had gathered to study me -- one actually showed me the ultrasound of our dying child while asking me if it was a planned pregnancy. Several wanted to examine me while I lay there bleeding and in pain. No one gave me anything for the pain or even respected my request to close the door even though I was on the labor and delivery floor listening to other women have healthy babies as the baby I had been trying to save died in my womb.
A very kind nurse risked her job to call a doctor from the Reproductive Health Clinic who was not on call, and asked her to come in to save my life. Fortunately she was home, and got there relatively quickly. By the time she arrived, I was in bad shape. The blood loss had rendered me nearly incoherent, but she still moved me to a different wing and got me the painkillers no one else had during the screaming hours I'd spent in the hospital. After she checked my lab tests, she told us I would need two bags of blood before she could perform the procedure. Her team (a cadre of wonderful students who should all go on to run their own clinics) took turns checking on me and my husband. They all kept assuring me that soon it would be over, and I would feel much better. My husband had to sign the consent for surgery (I was clearly not competent enough to make decisions), and they took me away along with a third bag of blood to be administered during the procedure.
Later I found out that the doctor had taken my husband aside as they brought me into surgery. She promised him she would do her best to save me, but she warned him there was a distinct possibility that she would fail. The doctor who didn't do abortions was supposed to have contacted her (or someone else who would perform the procedure) immediately. He didn't. Neither did his students. Supposedly there was a communication breakdown and they thought she had been notified, but I doubt it. I don't know if his objections were religious or not; all I know is that when a bleeding woman was brought to him for treatment he refused to do the only thing that could stop the bleeding. Because he didn't do abortions. Ever.
My two kids at home almost lost their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that was going to die anyway. My husband had told them exactly what my regular doctor said, and the ER doctor had already warned us what would have to happen. Yet none of this mattered when confronted by the idea that no one needs an abortion. You shouldn't need to know the details of why a woman aborts to trust her to make the best decision for herself. I don't regret my abortion, but I would also never use my situation to suggest that the only time another woman should have the procedure is when her life is at stake. After my family found out I'd had an abortion, I got a phone call from a cousin who felt the need to tell me I was wrong to have interfered with God's plan. And in that moment I understood exactly what kind of people judge a woman's reproductive choices.
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/ ... index.html
John_Browning
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
The mother's health was clearly in jeopardy. I don't recall there being any dispute about using abortions in those circumstances. While I agree that all medical professionals should continue to have the right to refuse to perform or participate in an abortion, if someone is going to die either way then there is no moral high ground in the matter and the might as well save the mother.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
It's incredible. It looks like we were drown 50 years back and even more.
I can't believe this is still happening nowadays.
I mean, this doesn't take place in the 3rd world, does it? Somewhere where there's no hospital or doctors or no one at all to call for help for miles around.
What I don't understand is that if that doctor refused to do it himself - and that's quite his right afterall - why did he also refuse to call the other doctor ? Why did he want that woman to die?
And in so much pain?
Last edited by zena4 on 31 May 2011, 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
To be honest, the quote reeks of "only one side of the story". Plenty of doctors don't ever do abortions, because they haven't been trained in them - especially relatively late term abortions such as ones at 20 weeks. If you show up in the emergency room with a massive stroke and only brain surgery will save you, don't expect the psychiatrist on call to open up your skull.
no, but if he fails to contact the neurosurgeon on call it's malpractice. If half an hour goes by and the neurosurgeon doesn't respond, then they should be contacted again. If an hour goes by and the neurosurgeon isn't there, someone gets the home phone number of the neurosurgeon who isn't on call. If an hour and a half goes by (and the patient is still alive), they start looking for other neurosurgery practices to contact.
This strikes me as an incredibly inappropriate response to the article.
_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
This strikes me as an incredibly inappropriate response to the article.
You don't agree that doctors should be allowed to conscientiously object?
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
What's conscientious about leaving a woman to die a slow, painful death? It's one thing to be "in the business of performing abortions". But this is clearly a case where a doctor is in violation of their oath, by failing to act. It's unpleasant to think about, but doctors are often required to perform triage and determine who can be saved and who is not going to make it... in this case, it's clear that he should have saved her.
_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
What's conscientious about leaving a woman to die a slow, painful death? It's one thing to be "in the business of performing abortions". But this is clearly a case where a doctor is in violation of their oath, by failing to act. It's unpleasant to think about, but doctors are often required to perform triage and determine who can be saved and who is not going to make it... in this case, it's clear that he should have saved her.
^ Agree.
_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf
Taking a break.
What's conscientious about leaving a woman to die a slow, painful death?
There is nothing moral in this... we both agree on that. If in the effort to save the mother the child is lost, then all that can be done, has been.
Maybe. If there was nothing that could be done to save the child and the mother I would agree that under the principle of double effect, that the doctor ought to save one even at the expense of the other. However, not all doctors will see things as I do and while I may disagree, I would not force someone to do something they considered unconscionable. I disagree with a number of conscientious objectors, particularly in relation to service during the Second World War. I however, regard the right to refuse as sacrosanct, because the right to object, covers me also, it is the only guarantee I have of the liberty of my own conscience. As it is said in 'A man for all seasons', 'I give the devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake'.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk&feature=related[/youtube]
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Such "conscientious objection" should occur prior to assuming a position where it is your responsibility to act in such situations. If you're a soldier, asked to provide covering fire for one of your buddies... that's not the time to object. You object before enlisting.
_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
By your logic, I would not be justified in refusing an order to provide covering fire in an area where I disagree with the assessment made of the likelihood of civilian casualties... should I have objected to those circumstances at the point of enlistment?
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
By your logic, I would not be justified in refusing an order to provide covering fire in an area where I disagree with the assessment made of the likelihood of civilian casualties... should I have objected to those circumstances at the point of enlistment?
Yup. If you're not interested in obeying commands, why the f**k would you sign up for the military?
_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."
I'm sorry. This is a clear EMTALA violation.
1395dd. Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor
(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor
(1) In general
If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—
(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or
(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section
Personal opinion... If you are a physician who has agreed to take call at a facility, you should only do so if you are willing to do it in the fullest capacity of your profession/abilty, regardless of your personal morals.
Also, if this is in fact a true accounting... It is the responsibility of Charge Nurses to then step up to the plate and manage the situation. I deal with doctors everyday who don't do specific kinds of surgery (because of specialty) I then have to look into transfering my patient. If my doctor happened to not approve the transfer, my Charge Nurse would get the House Coordinator involved. If you can't find a facility to accept your patient, you keep trying. You call physicians at home.. You wake up CEOs. You do what has to be done.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Fed up about my love life |
14 Jul 2025, 4:01 pm |
Your own life timeline |
11 Jul 2025, 9:56 am |
Should you have at least some drinks, drugs etc in life ? |
23 Jul 2025, 7:10 pm |
Receiving a diagnosis in later life |
Yesterday, 12:19 pm |