Doctors Let Woman Die Rather Than Harm Fetus

[Kim]

Link (http://jezebel.com/5659150/)

A Polish woman died because doctors kept refusing to treat her colon condition. The reason: they were worried she might miscarry.

Brittany Shoot of Change.org's Women's Rights blog tells the tragic story of Edyta, who was turned away by successive doctors to each refused to explain the real reason for the decision — "that treating the disease could result in a miscarriage or could force an abortion." Deprived of this information, Edyta couldn't find a doctor whose morals matched up with her needs, and this mismatch ended up being fatal. A resolution that would have established guidelines to help stop further tragedies like this came before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe this week, but it failed. Writes Shoot,

The text of the final document now states that "no person and no hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion." In other words, want to object to an abortion on any grounds? Fine by us.

In a way, the death of Edyta dwarfs the smaller injustices many American women have faced — the inability to get the morning-after pill because a pharmacist doesn't believe in it, or a doctor's unwillingness to prescribe antibiotics "in case" a patient is pregnant. But in another way, it shows what can happen when a woman's health takes a backseat to other people's principles. It also reveals that reproductive freedom isn't some kind of luxury — it can be a matter of life or death.

This is why anti-abortion does not mean pro-life. This is why you do not, regardless of your personal philosophical beliefs, put the life of a fetus on higher priority than the woman carrying it.

There's not much to be said other than that. It's more proof that conservatives are full of shit. This is another example of how male dominance continues to influence society. Etc etc.

[Oron]

I don't feel like I can add much to this other than my support to your opinion. Extreme cases like this are why I am pro-choice. If some illness or effect of pregnancy threatens the mother's life, better to save the mother despite the risk (while aborting the fetus in the process is incredibly sad, in my opinion) than to to nothing "for the sake of the fetus" and let the mother die, because the fetus will just die with her anyway. Too great a waste of life. At least, I think that way.

[Magus]

When potentially harming the fetus is a requirement to save the life of the mother, it seems necessary that the mother, knowing the risks to the fetus but still wanting the treatment, should receive it.

After all, I'm sure that in this case both the woman and the fetus died because of this. The doctors killed two people by refusing her treatment when they might have saved one (or even two, since it's possible the fetus might have survived whatever surgery was required, from how the article reads).

If a woman knows the risks to her fetus but wants life saving treatment, it makes no sense to keep it from her. The idea of pro-life is that the fetus has the right to live, but it makes no sense to remove the right of the mother to live in order to make this so.

[Ryanderman]

I don't understand what happened here. This makes no sense, from any perspective on the issue, as far as I can tell. I had thought that this was one area where all anti-abortion people could agree that maybe, sometimes, it's necessary. While arguments can be made (whether you see any merit in them at all or not) that the rights of the mother are subordinate to the life of the baby, I don't see how you could argue that the life of the mother is any less important that the life of the baby.

This just makes no sense to me.

[Sun-Wukong]

The idea of pro-life is that the fetus has the right to live, but it makes no sense to remove the right of the mother to live in order to make this so.

Especially considering that the fetus died in the process. :mad:

[Magus]

Yeah, exactly.

And Ryanderman, lots of people think this way. My own father thinks this way. He says, "The mother doesn't have any more right to live than the fetus". It's like the exact opposite tact you'd think someone would take, i.e., "the fetus doesn't have any more right to live than the mother". Just switch those around and you'll get exactly why this happened.

Throw in fatalistic religious beliefs, i.e. "it's in God's hands, obviously he wants the mother to die or she wouldn't die" etc. and this is not a surprising event at all. "She should want to die rather than abort her fetus" is another belief ballyhooed about by people who will never have to ever encounter this decision (i.e. men).

[McTahr]

Welp. Killed the baby with the mother.

Mission accomplished, doctors!

Oh, wait, hold on here:

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

Well, they're clean. Nothing to see here.

Facetious post is facetious.

[Magus]

They could maybe throw in a clause about not causing harm via inaction. Not sure if you can amend stuff as old as the Hippocratic oath, though.

[bluestarultor]

They could maybe throw in a clause about not causing harm via inaction. Not sure if you can amend stuff as old as the Hippocratic oath, though.

If you could, they wouldn't still all be swearing to a god nobody believes in anymore. One of several reasons I went into pharmacy originally and not medical school (I previously had thought of becoming a vet (I know veterinary school is totally different, but I was, like, twelve)).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't understand what happened here. This makes no sense, from any perspective on the issue, as far as I can tell. I had thought that this was one area where all anti-abortion people could agree that maybe, sometimes, it's necessary. While arguments can be made (whether you see any merit in them at all or not) that the rights of the mother are subordinate to the life of the baby, I don't see how you could argue that the life of the mother is any less important that the life of the baby.

This just makes no sense to me.

I don't see how this view is not the logical outcome of anti-abortion. Anti-abortion places the babies rights above those of the mother, just as how this happens here.

[Ryanderman]

I don't see how this view is not the logical outcome of anti-abortion. Anti-abortion places the babies rights above those of the mother, just as how this happens here.

Anti-abortion places the baby's life above the rights of the mother.

[Nikose Tyris]

Anti-abortion places the baby's life above the rights of the mother.

What's the difference? A Fetus has no desire for any other right. >.>

Edit: A fetus has no desires at all. You know what I meant.

[Sun-Wukong]

Anti-abortion places the baby's life above the rights of the mother.

In this case, here life.

[Funka Genocide]

It seems like the procedure(s) necessary to save the woman's life might have lead to a miscarriage. That's not the same thing as performing an abortion.

Honestly even by the wording of their own law these doctors are still liable. They weren't commissioned to perform an abortion, the unfortunate side effect of a necessary procedure might have been a miscarriage, but oh fucking well.

You really shouldn't be allowed to practice if you won't perform an abortion anyways.

[Kim]

It seems like the procedure(s) necessary to save the woman's life might have lead to a miscarriage. That's not the same thing as performing an abortion.

Yeah. My point was that it was the same backwards mentality that anti-abortion people have.

[Funka Genocide]

Yeah. My point was that it was the same backwards mentality that anti-abortion people have.

Yeah I can dig it. I mean the number of vocal "Pro-lifers" on this forum has to be dangerously low by this point however.

I mean this is a tragedy no matter how you slice it, and it really rests on the shoulders of whatever doctors this woman went to (as well as her family and herself for being, at the least, ignorant.)

I can kind of see how forcing someone to kill a fetus might lead to severe professional difficulties, but at the same time its like saying I can kind of see how forcing someone to kill an insurgent could do the same. You chose your profession, either deal with the realities of it or quit.

[Ryanderman]

What's the difference? A Fetus has no desire for any other right. >.>

Edit: A fetus has no desires at all. You know what I meant.
The idea is that the right to life is more important that all other rights. So while the right of the fetus to live trumps the other rights of the mother, the right of the fetus to live does not trump the right of the mother to also live, as the right to life is equally important in both.

That, at least, is my understanding of the pro-life/anti-abortion stance.

[Nikose Tyris]

The idea is that the right to life is more important that all other rights. So while the right of the fetus to live trumps the other rights of the mother, the right of the fetus to live does not trump the right of the mother to also live, as the right to life is equally important in both.

That, at least, is my understanding of the pro-life/anti-abortion stance.

It's a silly discussion to begin with, granted, but the disagreement I had brought up was based on your word choices more then anything. "Baby's Life" has a much... harsher audible consequence then "rights of a fetus" and is a cruel tactic used by Anti-Choicers. Like forcing out "Anti-Life" "Anti-Abortion" throws a negative into the mix. Your phrasing hit and kind of irked me, and I was interested in drawing out the conversation into something more.

Also, really, a Fetus has 0 needs/wants. It isn't a thinking being. It has/needs less rights then the young in any animal's Loins. It's the mother's task to do what she will with it.

**Removed because I decided it was too inflammatory.**

Edit: I've typed and retyped this post like 8 times tonight to try and be as clear, and polite, as possible. D: I am not trying to target or be rude or ANYTHING here. I'm still firmly of the stance that men don't have any stakes or rights to involve themselves in the pro-life/pro-choice debates at all. I'm only participating here because I've been wondering what the viewpoints of a few known pro-lifers are, and how they approaches things.

[Ryanderman]

It's a silly discussion to begin with, granted, but the disagreement I had brought up was based on your word choices more then anything. "Baby's Life" has a much... harsher audible consequence then "rights of a fetus" and is a cruel tactic used by Anti-Choicers. Like forcing out "Anti-Life" "Anti-Abortion" throws a negative into the mix. Your phrasing hit and kind of irked me, and I was interested in drawing out the conversation into something more.
I understand that. I used "Baby" because that's how I tend to think of it, not to be inflammatory. I often use baby and fetus interchangeably (though yes, I know, it's not technically accurate to do so), which is why I happened to use "fetus" in my last post.

And actually, I've heard it expressed, and used to identify with this frustration myself, that the term "fetus" was introduced into the debate by pro-choicers to purposefully dehumanize the baby inside the mother. Which really bothers anti-abortionists.


Also, really, a Fetus has 0 needs/wants. It isn't a thinking being. It has/needs less rights then the young in any animal's Loins. It's the mother's task to do what she will with it.
I would argue that rights are rights, regardless of the mental capacity of the person. If the fetus is a human, it has rights just like the mother. If it isn't, it doesn't.

[Magus]

If you could, they wouldn't still all be swearing to a god nobody believes in anymore. One of several reasons I went into pharmacy originally and not medical school (I previously had thought of becoming a vet (I know veterinary school is totally different, but I was, like, twelve)).

Yes, no one believes in God anymore. Indeed. :rolleyes:

As for the origins of the term "foetus", Ryanderman, it has been in use since 1594 in Britain, Ireland, etc. to refer to an unborn child, so I highly doubt it was introduced in the past 50 years or whatever to try and dehumanize unborn children.

Anyway, my stance on the whole thing is that people shouldn't have any problem with therapeutic abortions, but some people do and I don't really understand it, since it implicitly states that the fetus right to life overrules the woman's right to life. Obviously there is more of a moral quandary over elective abortions,although personally I find that a large number of the pro-life/anti-abortion bloc seems to encourage the perpetuation of the problem of unwanted babies via encouraging abstinence only sex education programs and otherwise making it difficult for teenagers to learn about and get ahold of birth control, and a smaller but equally numerous group within this larger group is also very zealously opposed to any form of abortions even when it makes little sense to oppose them, such as in the case of therapeutic abortions and rape/incest cases, which further removes discussion from what might actually be worthy moral discussion of elective abortions.

Plus there were basically no objections to abortion in general prior to the 19th century, at least via the law.

[Ryanderman]

Yes, no one believes in God anymore. Indeed. :rolleyes:

As for the origins of the term "foetus", Ryanderman, it has been in use since 1594 in Britain, Ireland, etc. to refer to an unborn child, so I highly doubt it was introduced in the past 50 years or whatever to try and dehumanize unborn children.
Not created, but used in the debate for the specific purpose of. Not saying that's what happened, but that's how a lot of anti-abortionists see it. Also not saying it's rational.

[Krylo]

Yes, no one believes in God anymore. Indeed. :rolleyes:

I think he was talking about Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, though they're not mentioned in the modern oath.

The modern oath doesn't swear to any god, as a matter of fact, and only mentions any gods in saying that a physician shouldn't play god.

Of course the classical translations are still sometimes used.

Edit: Classical Version:
I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art–if they desire to learn it–without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.
I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honoured with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Modernized version:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.