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.

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.

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.

Magus · 10-09-2010, 11:37 PM

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** · 10-09-2010, 11:56 PM

Welp. Killed the baby with the mother.

Mission accomplished, doctors!

Oh, wait, hold on here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hippocratic Oath

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 · 10-10-2010, 12:34 AM

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 · 10-10-2010, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 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.

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	#4
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.

10-09-2010, 11:37 PM	#6
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	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).

10-10-2010, 12:34 AM	#8
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	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.