Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
1
Comments
284
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The article says what would have saved her life, so I didn't think that was at issue here. But alright. It was good talking to you, and I hope you have a good day.

  • Yes. If someone is going to die soon after the problem is discovered, it's an emergency. I don't think this is a controversial claim. If someone gets hit by a car or has a stroke and has days to live, that doesn't mean we hold off on providing healthcare so they survive the incident.

  • I wouldn't "want" that, and besides, the law would have allowed that in this case. This is a simple medical mistake, the likes of which was the third leading cause of death in 2018.

    And far more human beings die when abortions are legal. You can "reframe" that however you want it, but that's a fact. Unless you'd like to argue that fetuses/babies aren't human? Or are you going to apply an arbitrary standard of "personhood" to protect your genocidal ideas?

  • I'm not a medical expert either, but I rely very heavily on physicians to remain alive. You and I both have a vested interest in our doctors treating us well. This looks like a tragic case of a medical error. This was, in 2018, the leading cause of death in America. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination. Even given the requirement to document it, with over a dozen people saying it would have been correct, it seems like it would be a very simple matter to prove in before a judge that it was necessary. The law also seems more geared towards collecting anonymous statistics as well.

  • They're relying on a lot of external support that could be given to other people. They're often given organ transplants (for which there can be years-long waiting list), blood, etc. that might all be used on someone else. Difficult decisions often have to be made about their viability. Regardless of that, we respect their right to life until it's absolutely clear that they won't survive.

  • But we have "over a dozen" medical experts who say it would have been the correct decision, and the law explicitly allows it. If it's so obvious that over a dozen experts who never spoke to the patient could know it was the right decision, then how does a competent doctor actually interacting with the patient not know that?

  • I am interrogating what happened. The law allows abortions in cases of medical emergency. Lots of people die because of medical errors every year. It's not hard to connect the dots.

    Do comatose people have bodily autonomy?

  • From the article:

    At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

    This would mean it was legal to perform an abortion. They should have known about this risk.

  • Alright, since you want me to say what it was, it sounds like a medical error to me.

  • The physician believed that a medical emergency had taken place, and therefore it would have been legal. And would you rather face legal consequences, or watch someone die in front of you because you could help them but didn't?

  • Or you could save your patient's life. The laws state if the physician believes there's a medical emergency.

  • How is allowing abortions during medical emergencies intimidating? That should be reassuring.

    To your second point, what about the fetus/baby's bodily autonomy? Surely that should be respected as well if it's likely to survive.

  • [Can you point to which law before this happened prohibits abortions in cases of medical emergency?(https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/history-of-abortion-laws#s-lg-box-wrapper-34155545) Let's go through the list:

    • The 1925 laws were found unconstitutional.
    • Roe v. Wade happened in 1973.
    • In 1992, the "viability" standard was introduced. This baby was clearly unviable.
    • The 1999 law is specific to minors, and the victim here wasn't a minor.
    • The Woman's Right to Know Act didn't prohibit abortions.
    • The 2011 law stated that a sonogram must be performed. Because the baby was suffering from an irreversible medical condition, though, this wouldn't apply.
    • The only part of the 2013 law that was upheld was the ban after 20 weeks "with some exceptions." The rest were overtuned in 2016, and this event occurred before the 20th week.
    • The 2017 law was found unconstitutional in 2018, well before this happened.
    • The 2021 law went into effect on September 1, 2021. However, in Sec. 171.205, it states that the prohibition of abortions on a fetus with a detectable heartbeat "do[es] not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter." This was a medical emergency.
  • Laws can also be misread, and it's very likely that this was done somehow. The law explicitly allows abortions under these circumstances. Can you explain yourself what's confusing about it?

  • She died, so that's an emergency. If someone is having a stroke and somehow doesn't die until three days later, that doesn't make it any less an emergency.

  • That's worth watching an innocent person die? Besides, how likely is it that "even though she was literally dying of the infection and the hospital knew it, that didn't constitute a medical emergency" would hold up in court?