Doctors, hospitals and abortions

[Anonymous]

This is why the forced birther laws are so scary for women, and their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

But the law that allows exceptions for the 'health' in these states also then allows the DA to have access to records of each abortion for their review. The DA is not a doctor. Perhaps they disagree that the woman is 'septic enough'...Maybe her BP dropped but she is maintaining it for the time being with fluids, so they wait until that doesn't work anymore.

Each decision for the doctor means weighing how sick the woman is against their risk of losing their license. It's an impossible situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

I wonder this too. How can someone who swore an oath actually let a patient die, knowingly? It should be considered homicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

NO. IT IS BECAUSE DOCTORS CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ASSISTING JN AN ABORTION.

MISCARRIAGES SOMETIMES LOOK LIKE AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

SOMETIMES DOCTORS ARE PRESENTED WITH AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

MANY MANY OTHER THINGS CAN GO WRONG IN PREGNANCY AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHAT THE CAUSE IS.

DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

Different country, but this was the issue with Savita Halapannavar in Ireland. The fallout from her death eventually resulted in Ireland changing its ban on abortions.
If I recall correctly, she suffered premature rupture of membranes prior to 20 weeks and eventually went septic. But, because the fetus still had a heartbeat, doctors would not perform the abortion necessary to save her life.

I assume something similar will happen here in the US eventually...or it already has and just wasn't publicized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

I wonder this too. How can someone who swore an oath actually let a patient die, knowingly? It should be considered homicide.

This is where providers are screwed either way. Once again, the DA who reviews abortion cases that hospitals are required to report, is not a medical expert. So a doctor must weigh how sick a woman is becoming vs. their own risk of losing their license. Red states have made it very clear that they are ready to prosecute any perceived misstep by a physician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

NO. IT IS BECAUSE DOCTORS CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ASSISTING JN AN ABORTION.

MISCARRIAGES SOMETIMES LOOK LIKE AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

SOMETIMES DOCTORS ARE PRESENTED WITH AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

MANY MANY OTHER THINGS CAN GO WRONG IN PREGNANCY AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHAT THE CAUSE IS.

DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?!?

+1, not a doctor, but work in healthcare and situations are much more grey and complex and every one is unique. It's not quite so simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

NO. IT IS BECAUSE DOCTORS CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ASSISTING JN AN ABORTION.

MISCARRIAGES SOMETIMES LOOK LIKE AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

SOMETIMES DOCTORS ARE PRESENTED WITH AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

MANY MANY OTHER THINGS CAN GO WRONG IN PREGNANCY AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHAT THE CAUSE IS.

DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?!?

Different poster, but what I don't understand about this specific case is they KNEW they needed to intervene, and delayed. It was clear cut intervention, and fast intervention, was needed, or she would die. They decided to not intervene until later, and she died. Meanwhile GOP could still prosecute because they did intervene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

NO. IT IS BECAUSE DOCTORS CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ASSISTING JN AN ABORTION.

MISCARRIAGES SOMETIMES LOOK LIKE AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

SOMETIMES DOCTORS ARE PRESENTED WITH AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

MANY MANY OTHER THINGS CAN GO WRONG IN PREGNANCY AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHAT THE CAUSE IS.

DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?!?

Different poster, but what I don't understand about this specific case is they KNEW they needed to intervene, and delayed. It was clear cut intervention, and fast intervention, was needed, or she would die. They decided to not intervene until later, and she died. Meanwhile GOP could still prosecute because they did intervene.

From the ProPublica article, citing information about the GA law:

"It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth."

In other words, the wording of the associated exception in the GA law concerns intervening only in cases associated with an incomplete natural miscarriage, NOT an incomplete medical abortion.
I would assume they felt they couldn't act because she had already told them that her condition resulted from a failed medical abortion. Had she told them she was miscarrying naturally, they likely would have performed a D&C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

NO. IT IS BECAUSE DOCTORS CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ASSISTING JN AN ABORTION.

MISCARRIAGES SOMETIMES LOOK LIKE AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

SOMETIMES DOCTORS ARE PRESENTED WITH AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

MANY MANY OTHER THINGS CAN GO WRONG IN PREGNANCY AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHAT THE CAUSE IS.

DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?!?

Different poster, but what I don't understand about this specific case is they KNEW they needed to intervene, and delayed. It was clear cut intervention, and fast intervention, was needed, or she would die. They decided to not intervene until later, and she died. Meanwhile GOP could still prosecute because they did intervene.

From the ProPublica article, citing information about the GA law:

"It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth."

In other words, the wording of the associated exception in the GA law concerns intervening only in cases associated with an incomplete natural miscarriage, NOT an incomplete medical abortion.
I would assume they felt they couldn't act because she had already told them that her condition resulted from a failed medical abortion. Had she told them she was miscarrying naturally, they likely would have performed a D&C.

So she was killed by being honest to her doctor. Time for patients to start lying since doctors are willing to let them die from honesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

I wonder this too. How can someone who swore an oath actually let a patient die, knowingly? It should be considered homicide.

Because they don't want to end up in jail for the rest of their life as is the threat in states like Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

I wonder this too. How can someone who swore an oath actually let a patient die, knowingly? It should be considered homicide.

This is where providers are screwed either way. Once again, the DA who reviews abortion cases that hospitals are required to report, is not a medical expert. So a doctor must weigh how sick a woman is becoming vs. their own risk of losing their license. Red states have made it very clear that they are ready to prosecute any perceived misstep by a physician.

Which is why younger doctors and med students are simply bypassing these states on their match process, and others have left, or are leaving. The net impact will be reduced medical care across the board in these states, not just women's health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

NO. IT IS BECAUSE DOCTORS CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ASSISTING JN AN ABORTION.

MISCARRIAGES SOMETIMES LOOK LIKE AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

SOMETIMES DOCTORS ARE PRESENTED WITH AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

MANY MANY OTHER THINGS CAN GO WRONG IN PREGNANCY AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHAT THE CAUSE IS.

DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?!?

Different poster, but what I don't understand about this specific case is they KNEW they needed to intervene, and delayed. It was clear cut intervention, and fast intervention, was needed, or she would die. They decided to not intervene until later, and she died. Meanwhile GOP could still prosecute because they did intervene.

You’re trying to rationalize the thought-process of monsters who want to force cameras into a woman’s “stomach” so she is forced to see the fetus before an abortion. That’s who is making the decisions. Morons in political office thinking babies are carried in the stomach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the first of what are likely many similar cases that will end up coming to light.
Investigation into maternal deaths takes time. Some states (i.e., TX) now have a vested interest in not actively pursuing investigations and studies in maternal mortality rates. And some families will be hesitant to come forward publicly about their losses.
Already, there are multiple stories of women who have suffered permanent loss of fertility due to lack of appropriate medical care. At least one or 2 of the women involved in the lawsuit down in TX ended up needing hysterectomies due to hemorrhage and/or sepsis.

This is what is so confusing and infuriating in these cases. Why exactly is the care being delayed? Is it because the fetus still has a heartbeat? Sepsis and hemorrhage are both medical emergencies and time is of the essence. The mother's life is potentially on the line so why would a doctor not take immediate action? Even if the fetus has a heartbeat it won't have one for much longer is no care is provided resulting in the mother's death.

NO. IT IS BECAUSE DOCTORS CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR ASSISTING JN AN ABORTION.

MISCARRIAGES SOMETIMES LOOK LIKE AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

SOMETIMES DOCTORS ARE PRESENTED WITH AN UNSUCCESSFUL ABORTION.

MANY MANY OTHER THINGS CAN GO WRONG IN PREGNANCY AND IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLEAR IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHAT THE CAUSE IS.

DO YOU REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?!?

Different poster, but what I don't understand about this specific case is they KNEW they needed to intervene, and delayed. It was clear cut intervention, and fast intervention, was needed, or she would die. They decided to not intervene until later, and she died. Meanwhile GOP could still prosecute because they did intervene.

You’re trying to rationalize the thought-process of monsters who want to force cameras into a woman’s “stomach” so she is forced to see the fetus before an abortion. That’s who is making the decisions. Morons in political office thinking babies are carried in the stomach.

No, there is no excuse for the GOP thinking and no rationalization. I am asking why Doctors are rationalizing murdering patients based on GOP rationalization. I understand they don't want to go to jail and that obviously rendering life saving care should not result in a jail sentence. The facts are still the same: They did not render care, knowing their patient would die. It is murder.