Why is this defensible behaviour for medical practitioners?

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:02 am

Dr. Smits3 was a physician at St. Mary’s hospital in a
large Eastern city. The patient was 19 weeks pregnant
and her membranes had ruptured. The fetus was not
yet viable and the patient was septic as a result of
PROM. Dr. Smits and the patient wanted to end
the pregnancy to save the woman’s health, but the
hospital ethics committee refused to approve the
termination because the fetus still had a heartbeat.
Dr. Smits was giving the woman medications to keep
her blood pressure up and using a cooling blanket
to keep her temperature down. As Dr. Smits said,
“this woman was dying before our eyes.” And still the
ethics committee refused to approve the termination.
The patient was in ICU for ten days, and nearly died.
The fetus died in utero. The woman had substantial
internal bleeding, and developed pulmonary disease,
resulting in lifetime oxygen dependency

http://www.healthlaw.org/images/stories ... _Women.pdf

funny side: I posted about this in a wingnut forum and they 100% endorsed the course of action of the hospital.

Argh.

It's just insane, they advocate freedom of choice... except if you're a woman. Fuck!

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:07 am

the ethics committee doesn't believe it's right to end one life to save another, which I suppose is admirable in it's own way, but the problem is that they were perfectly ok with condemning one life to keep from having to pull the plug on another.

My question is, was there a third option? The woman was in, what, her second trimester? Could the fetus have been removed and kept alive outsider a body in anyway? I honestly don't know, so it's a serious question.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:18 am

The fetus was not yet viable...

Tell me again how killing two is pro-life?

I just want to scream, "I'm pro-life. A fetus, no matter how much a life, does not outweigh the woman carrying it. Her life and well-being and even ability to have another child should be considered why abortion should be safe and available choices for her and her doctors."

-Crissa

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:31 am

The retarded thing is the wing nut brigade says 'go to a different hospital'

No sure how you can self check out of the ICU and drive to a different hospital when you need intensive care not to die.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:32 am

cthulhu wrote:The retarded thing is the wing nut brigade says 'go to a different hospital'

No sure how you can self check out of the ICU and drive to a different hospital when you need intensive care not to die.

Your life is *way* less important then someone's personal qualms about what the Sky Wizard Guild has to say about how you live your life. Duh.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:07 am

It makes me sick to the stomach.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:24 am

K · Post by K » Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:48 am

It's because conservatives and Christan fundamentalists believe that they own us, including our bodies.

I mean, why else would they tell us what happens to our bodies, or who we can marry, or how we live?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:14 am

K wrote:It's because conservatives and Christan fundamentalists believe that they own us, including our bodies.

I mean, why else would they tell us what happens to our bodies, or who we can marry, or how we live?

There was a quote I read in a book recently, where a hard-core Christian group was totally okay with a transsexual male-to-female woman who hung around a lot because her cousin had joined them. Someone asked if they're so on the straight and narrow, what about the girl?

The answer* was..

"We are a truly fundamentalist Christian church. We follow Jesus' teachings of tolerance and compassion."

The world would be a better place if more Christians rolled with that idea.

*yes, I totally found the book and went looking for the appropriate bit just to get the quote right

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:22 am

A transsexual ought to be referred to by the gender they express - just like everyone else.

So a male-to-female transsexual is a 'transsexual woman' or 'transwoman'. She is not a transsexual 'guy'.

-Crissa

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:42 am

I would sue.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:29 am

Crissa wrote:A transsexual ought to be referred to by the gender they express - just like everyone else.

So a male-to-female transsexual is a 'transsexual woman' or 'transwoman'. She is not a transsexual 'guy'.

-Crissa

Dammit, I did refer to her as a 'him' there. Sorry about that; it'll be corrected in a second.

But the point stands. I'd like to see Christians who are more into the 'be awesome and compassionate towards everybody' rather than the fire-and-brimstone.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:08 am

In answer to your thread title, it isn't...pure and simple. Attempts to defend this behavior are similar to attempts to defend honor killing and marital rape. They are non-arguments based on a skewed view of reality and ethics.

And that's from someone who self-identifies as christian, btw.

The Gaming Den

Why is this defensible behaviour for medical practitioners?

Why is this defensible behaviour for medical practitioners?

Re: Why is this defensible behaviour for medical practitione