Doctors in denial

[kama3]

generally i agree…but legally, i think its treading on very dangerous ground to be able to force a mother to die or be severely harmed for a baby who may or may not survive anyhow…

Yes. Read the complaint in Z. vs Poland: reproductiverights.org/en/case/z-v-poland-european-court-of-human-rights

On 5 May 2004, the applicant’s daughter, Y, was informed that she was between 4 and 5 weeks pregnant. Prior to or early during her pregnancy she developed ulcerative colitis (UC). …]

The applicant’s daughter was formally diagnosed with UC in around early June 2004 at the Internal Medicine Department in Piła. However, certain examinations (a second endoscopy, and especially a colonoscopy) which would have made it possible to gather more information on the location and extent of the problem were not performed on the applicant’s daughter.

…]

During the applicant’s daughter’s stay at the M. Pierogow Regional Specialist Hospital in Łódź in August 2004, the doctor refused to perform a full endoscopy. He stated that “my conscience does not allow me”, but did not formalise his objection or direct the patient to another doctor. The doctor justified not performing a full endoscopy by referring to his fear of endangering the life of the foetus.

The applicant states that at the end of August 2004 she and her daughter’s fiancée urged the doctor at the clinic in Łódź to commence any necessary treatment, irrespective of the consequences for the life of the foetus, to save Y’s life. These demands produced no result.

The applicant’s daughter lost the foetus on 5 September 2004. On 29 September 2004 she died of septic shock caused by sepsis

The compliant states that Y went through 12 hospitals in total and was refused admission into hospital twice.

The problem is this: if you pass a law that punishes a doctor for interfering with the health of the fetus, the doctors will refuse treatment to a pregnant woman out of fear that they can be prosecuted. This is despite the fact that such treatment is morally permissible under the doctrine of double effect, and it is unlikely that the doctor, even if prosecuted, would be convicted. It is better to involve conscious objection and send the patient away, than risk legal proceedings. The patient will of course die, but nobody will have any legal problems.

Pro-life, indeed!

 

[E.E.N.S]

Given that the fetus cannot survive by itself, would you rather have two dead bodies instead of one?

Are you being disingenuous?

I know that my wife would doing everything in her power, trusting the Lord with whatever the outcome may be, to save our child, even if it means possibly losing her own life in the process.

Now, being a father, I can’t get pregnant myself, obviously, but if my house was burning down, and one of my children were inside, I would go back in until I got my child out or died trying. (Would you rather I just stay outside and tell the onlookers, “Hey, if I go in there I might die! Wouldn’t it be better if only one of us died?!”)

IMO, the problem is, you don’t truly see the fetus as a child. I do.

 

[John1956]

Given that the fetus cannot survive by itself, would you rather have two dead bodies instead of one?

1. How do you know the mother would die?
2. How does one decide which one lives and which one dies?
3. Can any of us outside the womb survive by ourselves? Certainly a newborn baby cannot survive on his own.

John

 

[John1956]

Kama3,

You cite one tragic case where mother and baby died. I could cite the millions of tragic cases where unborn human beings were slaughtered. What’s your point?

John

 

[St_Francis]

Yes. Read the complaint in Z. vs Poland: reproductiverights.org/en/case/z-v-poland-european-court-of-human-rights

The compliant states that Y went through 12 hospitals in total and was refused admission into hospital twice.

The problem is this: if you pass a law that punishes a doctor for interfering with the health of the fetus, the doctors will refuse treatment to a pregnant woman out of fear that they can be prosecuted. This is despite the fact that such treatment is morally permissible under the doctrine of double effect, and it is unlikely that the doctor, even if prosecuted, would be convicted. It is better to involve conscious objection and send the patient away, than risk legal proceedings. The patient will of course die, but nobody will have any legal problems.

Pro-life, indeed!

The problem with your argument here is that as you point out, medical treatment would be morally acceptable, so it’s not an argument against what we are advocating.

 

[LisaA]

Hi Lisa, thank you for your fair tone. I also agree that we don’t need to appeal to religious bias when there’s plenty of universal, secular, and scientific truth to go on.

Unfortunately I drastically disagree with the claim that most women seeking abortions aren’t scared. Such a claim certainly is not consistent with what I’ve seen time and time again, nor do I believe it passes the common sense test.

Abortion is a very invasive procedure. Such invasion is scary to most people. Not to mention it is expensive. Nothing I have seen this side of quantum reality suggests most women who go for abortions aren’t scared more by the alternative.

Why have an abortion if pregnancy doesn’t scare you?

I have known enough pregnant young women, most of whom were visibly scared and shaken, many of whom were driven to consider abortion because of that fear. I’ve only met one girl who successfully came off stoic or nonchalant about having an abortion. She seemed to have other psychological issues too, but I still didn’t fully buy the facade.

Sorry just saw this reply. When I said women were not compelled to have abortions because they are desperate or scared was with reference to the reasons they sought abortion, not fear of the procedure itself. The media likes to make the “poster child” for pro-aborts a desperate teenager whose parents “will kill her” if she is found to be pregnant or a desperately poor woman who can’t feed her other children and thus is “scared” into having an abortion which seems the preferable alternative.

In reality many many studies have shown that the usual abortion seeker is not a teen, not a desperately poor woman nor one who has no alternative but to kill her unborn baby. Abortion has become so commonplace and so heavily promoted by Planned Parenthood which makes the MAJORITY OF THEIR MONEY FROM ABORTIONS, that it is not seen as a significant act of violence but simply getting rid of a “blob of tissue.”

The pushers at PP soothe the feelings of the pregnant woman by avoiding the reality of the procedure, that one of the parties has 100% fatality from the abortion. Many studies have shown that if a woman can see her baby through ultrasound or if she is aware of fetal development and fetal pain, she is far less likely to get an abortion.

FWIW I grew up in a secular pro-abort family so I know how they think and how they justify their position.
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

The problem with your argument here is that as you point out, medical treatment would be morally acceptable, so it’s not an argument against what we are advocating.

Amen and thank you for introducing reality into the discussion. It’s amazing how the pro-aborts always find some rare exception to justify abortions. The “what if” ignores the truth which is that the unborn baby is killed virtually every time. Pro-aborts are always saying “what about rape and incest?” or “what about the life of the mother” when that is not the reason for millions of abortions.

Most abortions are for the CONVENIENCE of the mother, not because her life is in danger not because she was raped and not because she was the victim of incest. Further, the abortion in the latter can actually cover up a crime.

Read Roe v Wade and you will be astonished at the vast stretching of reason to justify this hideous decision. I would have expected better of the Supreme Court but ideology trumps the facts every time.

Lisa A

 

[Shredderbeam]

A new person enters the human race at the moment of fertilization. At that moment (of fertilization) the person is indeed “worthy of moral consideration” and entitled to a right to life, just like you and I are entitled to a right to life.

John

Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. I meant that perhaps the doctors genuinely don’t consider a fetus as being worthy of moral consideration.

 

[John1956]

Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. I meant that perhaps the doctors genuinely don’t consider a fetus as being worthy of moral consideration.

Then as I indicated earlier, such doctors are genuinely incompetent if they lack this basic understanding and appreciation.

John

 

[kama3]

The problem with your argument here is that as you point out, medical treatment would be morally acceptable, so it’s not an argument against what we are advocating.

We aren’t talking morality, we’re talking criminal law. Pro-lifers passed an amendment to the Polish criminal code which says that whoever causes miscarriage or disrupts health of the fetus is punishable by jail. That was done about ten years after banning elective abortion.

That law means that if a doctor does a procedure on a pregnant woman, and she miscarries as a result, the doctor faces criminal charges. The result is that doctors refuse treatment to pregnant women because they don’t want to have problems. Which is what the case is all about.

Cool, eh?

 

[kama3]

1. How do you know the mother would die?

There’s a branch of science called medicine. It specializes in such matters.

1. How does one decide which one lives and which one dies?

The matter is not how does one decide but who decides. IOW, why should you have any say about the life of a woman you don’t even know? Because that’s what you are advocating.

1. Can any of us outside the womb survive by ourselves?

Today a child born prematurely at about 22 weeks has good chances of being saved. Earlier than that - no. That’s your answer.

 

[St_Francis]

We aren’t talking morality, we’re talking criminal law. Pro-lifers passed an amendment to the Polish criminal code which says that whoever causes miscarriage or disrupts health of the fetus is punishable by jail. That was done about ten years after banning elective abortion.*

That law means that if a doctor does a procedure on a pregnant woman, and she miscarries as a result, the doctor faces criminal charges. The result is that doctors refuse treatment to pregnant women because they don’t want to have problems. Which is what the case is all about.*

Cool, eh?

However, I think that this should be clarified in Polish law, as I don’t think this is what the lawmakers intended. Perhaps you could take it up with them.

In the meantime, consider that with every abortion, a human dies.

Additionally, in the US, Planned Parenthood has been found to not report instances of child abuse, which they are required to do, and instead covering up the abuse by performing abortions on underage girls.*

Several clinics over the years have been found to be delaying medical intervention and covering up medical complications including deaths resulting from their poor practices and unsanitary conditions. And those are the ones they know about.

Additionally, research shows that deaths resulting from abortion are often covered up. For example, a woman whose uterus is perforated during the procedure who then dies may be listed as dying from the resulting infection.

 

[LisaA]

Yes. Read the complaint in Z. vs Poland: reproductiverights.org/en/case/z-v-poland-european-court-of-human-rights

The compliant states that Y went through 12 hospitals in total and was refused admission into hospital twice.

The problem is this: if you pass a law that punishes a doctor for interfering with the health of the fetus, the doctors will refuse treatment to a pregnant woman out of fear that they can be prosecuted. This is despite the fact that such treatment is morally permissible under the doctrine of double effect, and it is unlikely that the doctor, even if prosecuted, would be convicted. It is better to involve conscious objection and send the patient away, than risk legal proceedings. The patient will of course die, but nobody will have any legal problems.

Pro-life, indeed!

Kama I’ve read your posts on this thread and clearly you provide a perfect example of the pro-abortion contingent that plays the “what if” card to justify this murder of innocent human life. Because pro-aborts have no compelling arguments on their side, they frequently posture some incredibly obscure anecdote to promote their cause.

What if there were a law that prosecuted doctors who inadvertently caused termination of a pregnancy when seeking unrelated medical treatment? Do you really think this is a valid argument given that this is an obscure case in the country of Poland having nothing whatsoever to do with the consistent life ethic in our faith. The real “what if” question to ask is “What if a pregnant woman seeks an abortion” we have an answer every single time; the unborn baby is killed. There is no question about that outcome.

It also obscures the reality of abortion in America which has sadly become an after the fact method of birth control because it has been so easily obtainable and so well promoted by an organization that makes the majority of its money from providing abortions. One need not agonize over whether the mother or child is to die when in reality the child will be sacrificed for what are far less compelling reasons than the life of the mother, or even her health for that matter.

Lisa A

 

[kama3]

However, I think that this should be clarified in Polish law, as I don’t think this is what the lawmakers intended. Perhaps you could take it up with them.

Actually, I know what the lawmakers intended when they passed the law which nailed that woman. The abortion law states that abortion is legal only in three circumstances (a) rape or incest; (b) threat to woman’s life and (c) the fetus is genetically defective.

Now, that’s a very reasonable law. But the issue is that since this law was passed, the pro-lifers have been attempting to remove the exceptions, particularly (c). The law in question was an attempt to outlaw prenatal diagnosis (which can allow legal abortion under (c)), because some prenatal diagnosis techniques are invasive. The attempt was a failure, because despite making access to prenatal diagnosis more complicated, legal abortions under (c) are still done.

It’s that law which caused that woman to be legally denied treatment.

In the meantime, consider that with every abortion, a human dies.

So, women dying because they are denied medically necessary abortion are an acceptable collateral damage?

But, forget abortion. Are women dying because they are denied access to diagnostics an acceptable collateral damage? Because diagnostic procedures carry minimal risk to the fetus?

Because that’s exactly what the pro-life movement in Poland has been pushing ever since outlawing elective abortion.

 

[kama3]

Kama I’ve read your posts on this thread and clearly you provide a perfect example of the pro-abortion contingent that plays the “what if” card to justify this murder of innocent human life.

Then explain me to this. The pro-life movement (supported by the Catholic Church) has succeeded in passing a law in Poland which outlaws abortion in all but very narrow cases (see the post above). The law is formulated that the exceptions cover the “what-ifs” cases which can be used to justify unlimited access to abortion.

A couple of years later, the same people proceeded to attack the exceptions. That has already swung some people over to the pro-choice side (myself included).

Where’s the logic here?

 

[John1956]

The matter is not how does one decide but who decides. IOW, why should you have any say about the life of a woman you don’t even know? Because that’s what you are advocating.

What about the life of the unborn baby? Is there some reason you omit mention of the unborn baby? Are you in denial too?

Today a child born prematurely at about 22 weeks has good chances of being saved. Earlier than that - no. That’s your answer.

No, that’s *your *answer, not mine. And you dodged my question.

John

 

[John1956]

There’s a branch of science called medicine. It specializes in such matters.

Oh, you mean that branch of “science” that tolerates some of its practitioners slaughtering unborn babies.

John

 

[St_Francis]

Actually, I know what the lawmakers intended when they passed the law which nailed that woman. The abortion law states that abortion is legal only in three circumstances (a) rape or incest; (b) threat to woman’s life and (c) the fetus is genetically defective.*

Now, that’s a very reasonable law.

Well, you may think it’s reasonable, but you are not the one being killed.

In effect, the law allows the death penalty for a victim of a criminal act, which is particularly ironic given the the perpetrator of the act has no chance of receiving the death penalty…

And if doctors say the mother’s life is in danger (very rare, btw), then the baby must be killed, despite the fact that if someone were to kill an older person in order to save a life, we would be horrified.

And as to killing someone for merely being handicapped…*

But the issue is that since this law was passed, the pro-lifers have been attempting to remove the exceptions, particularly (c). The law in question was an attempt to outlaw prenatal diagnosis (which can allow legal abortion under (c)), because some prenatal diagnosis techniques are invasive. The attempt was a failure, because despite making access to prenatal diagnosis more complicated, legal abortions under (c) are still done.

So the law is not precisely what you said it was before, when you described it as “whoever causes miscarriage or disrupts health of the fetus is punishable by jail.” Would the woman in question have had to have the amniotic fluid tested for her diagnosis or treatment?

Here you say that the intent of the law was to outlaw certain forms of pre-natal testing which are dangerous to the unborn baby. And yet something about the law has caused doctors to be unwilling to treat pregnant women if the treatment would endanger the unborn child, That seems like an unintended consequence, perhaps due to a poorly-worded law.

It’s that law which caused that woman to be legally denied treatment.*

So, women dying because they are denied medically necessary abortion are an acceptable collateral damage?

A separate issue which I will address below.

But, forget abortion. Are women dying because they are denied access to diagnostics an acceptable collateral damage? Because diagnostic procedures carry minimal risk to the fetus?

Because that’s exactly what the pro-life movement in Poland has been pushing ever since outlawing elective abortion.

This is the deal: insofar as Polish law denies moral medical treatment for pregnant women, it is going further than the Church teaches, so you cannot complain either about Church teaching in this area or pro-life people who are in accord with Church teaching.

Moreover, just as the examples I posted, which you ignored, of deaths and other problems to women caused by abortion, are “unintended” consequences of abortion’s being legal, so apparently is this situation in Poland, according to what you have written about the law.

So, women dying because they are denied medically necessary abortion are an acceptable collateral damage?

If a man were about to die because he needed a heart transplant, would it be acceptable to kill somone else to get their heart to save his life?

 

[kama3]

So the law is not precisely what you said it was before, when you described it as “whoever causes miscarriage or disrupts health of the fetus is punishable by jail.” Would the woman in question have had to have the amniotic fluid tested for her diagnosis or treatment?

The law is worded as I said. The reasoning behind this law was as follows:

(1) a malformed fetus can be legally aborted
(2) abortion law is untouchable for political reasons
(3) prenatal diagnosis is needed for determing if a fetus is malformed
(4) so let’s outlaw prenatal diagnosis!
(5) but that specific idea encountered opposition, so they pushed an “innocent” amendment to the criminal code which says “whoever causes miscarriage or disrupts health of the fetus is punishable by jail”. The idea was to scare doctors away from doing amniocentesis because it carries a risk of miscarriage or damaging the fetus.

The woman in question was denied colonoscopy (read the suit) which is a completely unrelated procedure – because it carried a risk of miscarriage. All because of ideologically motivated legal trickery resulting in a bad law having unintended consequences. That’s the crux of the issue.

And while we are at it: the idea of banning diagnosis because it may possibly give an excuse for legal abortion is completely wrong. But some prolifers are pushing it because is supposedly prevents a greater evil… Right.

(I am going to drop arguing over the morality of aborting malformed fetuses. This deserves a separate discussion.)

If a man were about to die because he needed a heart transplant, would it be acceptable to kill somone else to get their heart to save his life?

This is a fallacious argument. You conveniently overlook the fact that the fetus under ca. 22 weeks cannot survive outside the mother’s body. Your heart transplant situation is: Is it acceptable to kill A to save B, if A would live otherwise? This is not comparable to a medically necessary abortion, because the situation there is: Is it acceptable to kill A to save B, if both A and B will die otherwise.

But that’s not even the situation here. The situation here is that some people believe that it is right to deny a woman access to diagnostics, because it could possibly produce a miscarriage or possibly give a way to legal abortion – regardless of consequences to the woman.

[Interesting tangential point: there are inconsistencies in statistics which suggest that Polish women who would be entitled to legal abortion abort illegally. Apparently an illegal abortion involves less hassle than doing the paperwork to get a legal one.]

Bad “pro-life” laws kill women. This isn’t pro-choice propaganda, this is a documented fact.

 

[schaubj57]

I found the following on a medical website, authored by supposed smart doctors:

“Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all maternal mortality and serious complications. Death from abortion is almost unknown in the United States or in other countries where abortion is legally available.” (Reference:
emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview )

While maternal death is a tragedy, these doctors appear to be in denial in their second sentence when they fail to mention the other victim in abortion, namely, the baby.

John

The only abortion that should be legal is the decision to have or abort having sex. Sex is the #1 cause of pregnancy (it’s what sex if primarily for) and if you abort having sex then you can abort the chance of getting pregnant.

I am stilll how to handle rape and incest cases. Maybe in terms of rape, a woman could have the child and give the child up for adoption if she doesn’t want to raise the child. Incest? Still not sure about that.

If you’re outside the confiens of marraige, you shouldn’t be having sex anyway. From what I have read and understand about abortions most are from unwed mothers who don’t want a baby. They just want to have sex and live a life of immorality and sin and abortion allows them to do that with no concern over living with their actions in this world.