Doctors Let Woman Die Rather Than Harm Fetus

Kim · 10-09-2010, 08:40 PM

Link

Quote:

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 · 10-09-2010, 10:31 PM

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 · 10-09-2010, 11:18 PM

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.

Sun-Wukong · 10-09-2010, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

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.

Ryanderman · 10-09-2010, 11:20 PM

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.

Professor Smarmiarty · 10-10-2010, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 10-10-2010, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

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 · 10-10-2010, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

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.

Ryanderman · 10-10-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

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.

Sun-Wukong · 10-10-2010, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

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

In this case, here life.

10-09-2010, 10:31 PM	#2
Oron Curious Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 208	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. __________________ Sneaking around the forums to read your posts.

10-09-2010, 11:20 PM	#5
Ryanderman Beard of Leadership Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 827	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. __________________ ~Your robot reminds me of you. You tell it to stop, it turns. You tell it to turn, it stops. You tell it to take out the trash, it watches reruns of Firefly.~

10-09-2010, 11:18 PM	#3
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	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.