Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Were you required to see them even if you didn't want to? By law?
Couldn't tell if you if there was a law - I'd be okay if there were, because no one should be able to sign off on "informed consent" without having seen all relevent information, be it ultrasounds, x-rays or test results. I don't agree that anyone should be "forced" - as in, if they want to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and go "na na na", then you've done all you reasonably can do.
Which is NOT what the law says. Which law? Which state? You don't specify so I don't know to which law you are referring. What part of a politician telling a woman that she MUST view an ultrasound of her fetus before she can get an abortion is NOT paternalistic, misogynist or an attempt at manipulation? Again this is not about a doctor being required to view an ultrasound for medical reasons, this is about a requirement on a patient.
See above - you are subjectively deciding that seeing an ultrasound would be manipulation. If, as those who object to the idea argue, it isn't yet a baby - it's just a clump of cells, then what is the big deal? I could argue that it is paternalistic and misogynistic to think you have to protect women from the realities of what exactly they will be expelling from their womb. If a women is to be free to chose, why shouldn't it be a choice informed by the very specifics unique to her, rather than some generalization about what precisely is to done?
Of course it's not a 100% chance of disability, but that wasn't my point. One of the major reasons you can't just say X weeks is the absolute cut off is that there is a lot of gray area. In addition, if a fetus is now "viable" but is only 24 weeks do you allow the woman to induce delivery so she can give birth and then abandon the child to the care of the state, or do you force her to carry it longer?

I'm making a second post with some data I did find. I would not call the Guttmacher Institute unbiased - but I will admit it is just about impossible to find research that doesn't bear some taint from either side.


I'm not saying restrict the information to the medical profession, I'm saying that medical professionals should make the decisions about medical care, not politicians (particularly not male politicians who REALLY have no right telling a woman what to do with her body)You do realize this is an argument ad homnieum, right? A logical fallacy.This particular one drives me crazy. Either the law proposed is logical, or it is not. It does not matter whether the person making it has a penis or uterus. Should only those who've had an unplanned pregnancy have a voice? Only fertile women? Should juries be made up only of the defendent's gender, race, class, educational background? Should only bankers make banking laws? Etc. - Nope. A proposed law should stand or fail on its merits. . I'd rather that my medical care, whether abortions or surgery not go up for a public vote. I'd be willing to bet it you are not quite ready to have state and federal oversight of medical care withdrawn. That's totally different than having your medical care put up for a vote.

Every time I try and post weird stuff happens. This is my third attempt - if it doesn't work I give up. Drole - I know you aren't going to change my mind, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change yours, so I don't want to continue to go back and forth. I am very familiar with your arguments - when I was avidly "pro-choice" I made them myself.

So back on topic - DF, if increased regulations aren't the answer, what should PA do as far as enforcing current ones? Should oversight go to another state/federal body?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Couldn't tell if you if there was a law - I'd be okay if there were, because no one should be able to sign off on "informed consent" without having seen all relevent information, be it ultrasounds, x-rays or test results. I don't agree that anyone should be "forced" - as in, if they want to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and go "na na na", then you've done all you reasonably can do.

Really. You think that as a lay person you can really look at a x-ray, CT, ultrasound and decide if you need a procedure? You are using the information given to you by the physician. The exam could be completely normal, especially in the case of US (which is very user dependent and results in pseudolesions especially in breast quite frequently), and if the MD told you it was abnormal, even another MD who isn't a radiologist wouldn't know they were wrong. How are you as an untrained person supposed to know what you are looking at? It may make you feel better that you saw all of your films, but for informed consent, it is completely unnecessary for a patient to see all of their studies before an exam. I get informed consent from patients 5 times a day and actually show patients their films very infrequently. When I do show it to them, they have no idea what they are looking at. If I wanted to, I could point anything out to them as an abnormality, and they'd have no idea I was wrong. At some point, you have to trust what your physician is telling you. Informed consent is about telling you the risks and benefits of the procedure, giving you alternatives for treatment and answering any questions you have. It's not about show and tell.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Really. You think that as a lay person you can really look at a x-ray, CT, ultrasound and decide if you need a procedure? You are using the information given to you by the physician. The exam could be completely normal, especially in the case of US (which is very user dependent and results in pseudolesions especially in breast quite frequently), and if the MD told you it was abnormal, even another MD who isn't a radiologist wouldn't know they were wrong. How are you as an untrained person supposed to know what you are looking at? It may make you feel better that you saw all of your films, but for informed consent, it is completely unnecessary for a patient to see all of their studies before an exam. I get informed consent from patients 5 times a day and actually show patients their films very infrequently. When I do show it to them, they have no idea what they are looking at. If I wanted to, I could point anything out to them as an abnormality, and they'd have no idea I was wrong. At some point, you have to trust what your physician is telling you. Informed consent is about telling you the risks and benefits of the procedure, giving you alternatives for treatment and answering any questions you have. It's not about show and tell.

Exactly. I've had X-Rays to determine if I had irregularities related to a health condition. I didn't ask to look at the prints because I didn't need to. All I needed was the doctor to confirm that there were no irregularities and give me more details. Had I ended up needing a procedure, that wouldn't have changed. What am I going to see on that print that I NEED to see to make a decision? I would have no idea whatsoever what I was looking at either way. I do hope I am never in a position where I have to make the decision to have an abortion or not, but I do know seeing an ultrasound wouldn't be necessary to make the decision. And I absolutely object to being forced to see it. It IS MEANT to be manipulative. I was not forced to see my X-Ray, and wouldn't have been forced to see it even if I had needed a procedure. Why is this different?

[Drolefille]

Which law? Which state? You don't specify so I don't know to which law you are referring.

I thought I was rather clear the first time I brought it up. However, see NYtimes. Some states require ultrasounds, Oklahoma passed a law requiring that the technicians describe the heart beat, the toes, etc and that they sign off that the woman was paying attention. It IS manipulative and paternalistic, and there's a reason that it only happens with abortion and not with a colonoscopy. Because people want to dissuade women from having an abortion, plain and simple.

I would not call the Guttmacher Institute unbiased - but I will admit it is just about impossible to find research that doesn't bear some taint from either side.

Their data appears unmanipulated, at least from what I can see. I get that they're pro-access to abortion and birth control, but they also didn't have any scare facts on either side.

ou do realize this is an argument ad homnieum, right? A logical fallacy.This particular one drives me crazy. Either the law proposed is logical, or it is not. It does not matter whether the person making it has a penis or uterus. Should only those who've had an unplanned pregnancy have a voice? Only fertile women? Should juries be made up only of the defendent's gender, race, class, educational background? Should only bankers make banking laws? Etc. - Nope. A proposed law should stand or fail on its merits.

The law itself is indeed independant of those proposing it, however what makes violations of rights even more egregious is when the majority does it to the minority, when the powerful do it to the powerless. So while the OK ultrasound law is wrong because of the law itself, the fact that it was primarily written and supported by men adds to the insult. During the health care debate, when one male politician stated that HE didn't need maternity care so why should it be covered, he got smacked down royally by his fellow, female, politician. However it was wonderful evidence of the thought process that goes into the majority controlling care for the minority.

Additionally, there is a lot of research on black defendants and all white juries. So while you've reduced it to the ridiculous, there is concern about not adequately representing "peers" on the jury.

I'd be willing to bet it you are not quite ready to have state and federal oversight of medical care withdrawn. That's totally different than having your medical care put up for a vote.

You stated "so the public can decide." My point was that the "public" shouldn't be deciding. Medical professionals should be advising government regulatory agencies on the level of safety required for care. The 'public' should not be able to vote to require flu shots to take place in a hospital or surgeries to take place at Walgreens any more than the public should be able to vote on the safety and regulation of abortion.

I'm not sure how you're connecting from A to B in what I'm saying and ending up with C.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Every time I try and post weird stuff happens. This is my third attempt - if it doesn't work I give up. Drole - I know you aren't going to change my mind, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change yours, so I don't want to continue to go back and forth. I am very familiar with your arguments - when I was avidly "pro-choice" I made them myself.

Besides my desire for access to abortion, I'm not really sure how my comments are actually related to abortion itself. Were it any other medical procedure, I'd feel the same way. And that's why the distinctions between abortion and other medical procedures are so stark.

So back on topic - DF, if increased regulations aren't the answer, what should PA do as far as enforcing current ones? Should oversight go to another state/federal body?

Figure out where they went wrong and fix it? Without having access to that information, and I don't want to read the grand jury reports for my own mental health, I can't give specifics. Luckily it's not my job to. But having worked in the state government before, I do believe that they're perfectly capable of fixing things and enforcing the laws currently in place and will probably have to make a lot of changes and report to the federal government in the process.