(07-28-2022 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But Ham, your comment doesn’t address the fact that the Texas law, and others, are subjective. The laws are not clear and absolute and clearly, based on many reports, doctors and hospitals are reacting to that by being cautious and delaying treatment. A delay in treatment is a delay in one’s ability to get medical care - and now that the punishments are more severe, delays are happening. I feel like you’re arguing that nothing has changed since Roe despite the clear and obvious evidence that real world actions have substantially changed since Roe fell.

LOTS of laws are subjective. There is a concept in law that is present in TONS of cases involving 'reasonable' actions.

In medicine, this is even MORE pronounced in that these are people, not Chevy's they are dealing with.... and 'standard medical decision making' or 'best practices' or numerous other such comments have been present in medicine for decades if not centuries.

The simplest example already given is 'self defense' vs murder. For most laws, you must determine that the person REASONABLY feared for their life. Well, some people aren't afraid of much of anything and others are afraid of their shadows... so what is reasonable?? At least in medicine, you have years of training and testing and decades of similar cases and tens of thousands of practitioners and hundreds of millions of patients of 'evidence' to lead to conclusions.

Besides, as I said... The law (not the punishment, but the law) is no different than what it was in 2021, just with a different 'point x' date. There were certainly situations where an abortion was necessary but it was after the cut-off, and the doctor had to make this identical determination.

Quote:The story I am talking about is the one I posted and you responded to with the vacation comment. In that story, the hospital clearly felt that they did not have the ability to terminate the pregnancy, as the patient wanted, when the risk to the mother was present but not significant enough. Again, you’re arguing that a delay in care is NBD, and I am saying it is a big deal.

Well, the OB, the hospital and the mother all thought it was okay for her to go home... But I suppose they should have asked you??

And you mis-state the facts. The hospital clearly felt they didn't have enough evidence to support the claim of 'threat to the mother AT THAT MOMENT to perform the abortion AT THAT MOMENT. On the contrary, they ALL (including the OB and mother) clearly felt that they had time to safely review things. The concern for the mental state of the mother is noteworthy, but really all and all its an ember on what must be an incredible house fire.

This discretion puts the doctor at LESS risk, not more... because they are clearly not alone in the determination.... which was where this argument started. You've now moved to where despite clear evidence that NOBODY thought the woman's situation was too risky to wait, even sending her HOME... but you want the law to TAKE THAT MEDICAL DECISION MAKING RIGHT away from medical professionals, and codify that into law.

We're right back where we started where the left was attacking doctors for prescribing hydroxychloroquine, but here you are arguing that 'doctors acting outside of established medical practices' should be allowed to abort babies without ANY delay or review whatsoever

Again, if you want to argue that the date is wrong, that's another question. I'm still looking for some 'error' in the law that you seem to feel is there, and it simply isn't.

Oh, and by the way... 'getting a second opinion' when there is no imminent threat of life to the patient has been a standard medical practice, upheld by probably thousands of court cases and decisions, for decades. If the patient can go home, they can CERTAINLY wait for a second opinion on an abortion.

Quote:I just came across this article that again provides more examples of the real concerns by doctors regarding the potential to be sued even if they and their hospitals believe they are following medical judgement.

Quote: Missouri does not define pregnancy, but describes medical emergency as a condition requiring “immediate abortion” to prevent death “or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” Arkansas and Oklahoma define medical emergency as when the pregnant person’s “life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury,” while Texas has a medical emergency exception but does not define the term.

In Missouri, every abortion must be reported to the state, and prosecutors will examine them to confirm a medical emergency was present. “I can’t tell my physicians I’m not worried about an overzealous prosecutor,” said Larson-Bunnell, who did not specify which hospital she works for so as to protect her client’s identity.

Although Rhee’s patient was able to get surgery in time, physicians are worried that delays could imperil other patients. The lack of specificity over what counts as a threat to the mother’s life means some doctors feel pressure to sit and watch patients’ health deteriorate until they’re able to intervene.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/07/05/a-sc...-patients/

So great... another, this hasn't happened anywhere yet, but I'm worried that it could' case. And still, WELCOME TO BEING A DOCTOR!!

First, such terms have meanings both in medicine and in law, even if you don't specifically list them. They have been listed before and as I said, were present in 2021, post 'viability'.

That said, I KNOW you aren't seriously suggesting that lawyers write a law that says something like, WBC over 10,000, HR of below 70 but above 55 and BP below 110/60, with a viability index (something that would have to be created that consisted of all sorts of similar criteria) of the child over 50.1 or any of a number of 'sliding scale' measures in between there and 'normal' would constitute an emergency?? That is literally insane that you would ask a lawyer rather than a doctor to define 'medical emergency' or 'immediately life threatening'. The discretion being given to the medical community even outweighs the discretion given to someone shooting an intruder in their home.

Hell even in your example, they don't define 'serious' or 'significant'... yet you seem FINE with their definitions... lol.

(07-28-2022 06:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In your responses to me, am I reading this correctly that one of your concerns (potentially even primary concerns), is that hundreds do thousands, if not millions, of abortions were or will be given to women who don’t consent to them? That hospitals would force that many women to get an abortion who were having complications but would have rather tried other medical procedures that saved their child?

Once again... forest:trees, lad.

I don't know exactly how many women have abortions and don't want them... yet are told (or it is decided because they cannot consent) that they MUST have one to save their lives... but it is far from zero and over a period of years, yes I believe it could easily be in the millions. The number isn't really important, only that it is a fairly significant number. Miscarriages are relatively common. While not technically an abortion, YOU guys have made it so in our D&C discussion.

and I never said anything about not 'trying other things first' because that is of course 'standard medical procedure' that I would expect them to follow.

And no, since I've never mentioned it before and barely mentioned it here... it is not REMOTELY my primary concern. If I had to pick one, MY primary concern would be that the legislature would do as you seem to want and 'define' words like 'emergency' for doctors, who are clearly more trained in it and certainly able to judge it based on a myriad of concurring and complicating factors.

That said, since we're not discussing a bill that does that, it really isn't much of a concern to me at all... and is instead merely a rebuttal to YOUR concerns.