Strict Abortion Measures Enacted in Oklahoma - Page 2

[cappuccinosmom]

I'll just say I agree with Arduinna on both points.

[philomom]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

As someone who had a first trimester natural miscarriage at home and saw the fetus, I can assure you that it was pretty detailed looking. I won't go into specifics here, but it perfectly lined up with the photos I'd seen on fetal development. It wasn't just some blob that is indistinguishable.

Okay, I went through the same thing.. natural miscarriage at home, first trimester. All I did see was a plum colored blob.
Not trying to belittle your experience. I just wanted to point out that not all miscarrying moms see the same thing you did. Loosing a kid sucks. I'm sorry any of us have to go through that.

Back to Oklahoma, I'm glad I don't live there. I'm hoping these actions will overturned somehow. For a doctor not to give full disclosure to a patient should be criminal in my opinion.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by KatWrangler

Throwing this out here.

Okay, what if the Doctor doesn't tell the woman the baby has a problem. A problem that requires a medical team in place as soon as the baby is born.

So the baby is born with the problem and then dies because the medical team is not in place. Can the Doctor be sued?

Yes. From the text of the bill I downloaded from here:

This section shall not preclude causes of action based on claims that, but for a wrongful act or omission, maternal death or injury would not have occurred, or handicap, disease, or disability of an individual prior to birth would have been prevented, cured, or ameliorated in a manner that preserved the health and life of the affected individual.

[geekgolightly]

Yeah, the law seems pretty specific to allowing doctors to withhold information to prevent an abortion. It might well affect many people who will be shocked to find that their baby didn't develop normally (though not medically life threatening), the doctor knew and didn't tell them, and now they have no legal right to sue for withholding that information.

[geekgolightly]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

I'll just say I agree with Arduinna on both points.

I want to know an opposing thought process on this, unless of course it is based in the belief that abortions shouldn't occur in the first polace. I am to understand that that particular topic is a no-no. Which makes sense. It's the same thing as arguing with an Objectivist if you're a follower of Iris Murdoch. It is fundamentally different. It's an a priori thing, and it won't change.

But I really would like to hear sound rationales on why it's a good thing to force women to view and listen to a detailed recital of the ultrasound before an abortion. All questions about development are already covered with a trained counselor prior to the procedure. The U/S is only for viability and location.

[Purple Sage]

Well, I don't have a problem with the first law (not entirely sure about the second).

First of all, I would imagine that abortion clinics where the u/s would take place prior to the abortion would have very very strict rules on what exactly could be said, and techs would not be allowed to speak about the baby except in the most unemotional way. They would not be actively trying to get women to not have an abortion or else they'd lose their job.

Also, if a medical description of the baby and a fuzzy u/s picture would change a woman's mind about having an abortion, then doesn't that say something about that woman's choice (as in, it's the wrong one for her)?

I imagine this situation: A woman is facing an unintended pregnancy and decides that she should terminate, and she tells the counselor at the clinic that she'd rather not know anything about the baby's development because she doesn't want to be swayed by her emotions or just would rather not have to deal with her emotional reaction to knowing the full extent of what she was doing. In other words, she sticks her head in the sand in order to go through with it. Then days, weeks, years later she finds out the details she declined to hear before the abortion and truly regrets having it done. I think that it's a good thing for the medical professionals to insist that the woman make a truly informed decision instead of being allowed to go through with the procedure that she would not have done had she not been given the opportunity to opt out of knowing all the facts.

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by philomom

Back to Oklahoma, I'm glad I don't live there. I'm hoping these actions will overturned somehow. For a doctor not to give full disclosure to a patient should be criminal in my opinion.

I am from there, it is a nice place. But uh...yeah ITA it should be criminal not to fully disclose medical information to a patient.

[geekgolightly]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Also, if a medical description of the baby and a fuzzy u/s picture would change a woman's mind about having an abortion, then doesn't that say something about that woman's choice (as in, it's the wrong one for her)?

We don't go into details about surgeries or most other major medical procedures because, frankly, I think it would scare people off. Shoudl we do that to ensure that people completely understand what happens pre intra and post op during a CABG? Believe me, you don't wanna know. Or, if you do, you'll ask.

[Arduinna]

huh? My husband has had bypass surgery you can bet we knew exactly what they were going to do and what recovery should be expected before he consented. That is a part of full informed consent.

[Drummer's Wife]

Purple Sage, I couldn't figure out how to word my thoughts, and deleted my post earlier - but you said it well.

[geekgolightly]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

huh? My husband has had bypass surgery you can bet we knew exactly what they were going to do and what recovery should be expected before he consented. That is a part of full informed consent.

You don't know all of the ugly stuff that happens. Look, I am part of giving consent for these procedures, I'm there explaining to families things and we gloss over the ugly side of things. We don't talk about never recovering from post pump delirium or when they go septic we don't give you the minutia of details about what happens to the body.

It's a need to know thing only.

[Arduinna]

I can tell you that I'm the person in the hospital reading not only my own chart when I was admitted but also my husbands the numerous times he has been in hospital.

We both have been in hospitals where it it was very likely we could die. I'm all for full and complete informed consent ironically I've found my Drs to be the ones that give the fullest informed consent, whereas the nurses tend to try and gloss it over unless directly asked. Which is why I also get my info from the surgeons themselves, and the anesthesiologists.

Personally I can't stand the patronizing attitude some HCP have that they have to protect us for our own good from the realities of life. It's my life on the line, not the Drs, you bet your you know what I expect full and complete disclosure.

[geekgolightly]

Which is why I said unless they ask? You sound a little miffed or something?

In any case, every doctor I have ever worked with, in every instance of informed consent, has not gone over every detail, unless asked. I have worked in five hospitals in four states and even more units, so it isn't that I am only exposed to one cultural climate. It may sound like informed consent, and it IS, in that you know what you need to know about the basic risks and benefits, the basic outline of what the surgery entails and what you can expect from recovery, but details? How many mm we resects or how terrible it is to get someone on and off the pump isn't explored in detail. What's the point, other than for it to be a scare tactic.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by geekgolightly

You don't know all of the ugly stuff that happens. Look, I am part of giving consent for these procedures, I'm there explaining to families things and we gloss over the ugly side of things. We don't talk about never recovering from post pump delirium or when they go septic we don't give you the minutia of details about what happens to the body.

It's a need to know thing only.

I'm following this thread, and I'm curious at the double standard for withholding information. Don't get me wrong-- I think withholding information for the purpose of manipulating someone into not having an abortion is wrong. But I find withholding information for the purpose of manipulating someone into having another procedure equally wrong.

[geekgolightly]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

I'm following this thread, and I'm curious at the double standard for withholding information. Don't get me wrong-- I think withholding information for the purpose of manipulating someone into not having an abortion is wrong. But I find withholding information for the purpose of manipulating someone into having another procedure equally wrong.

The time it would take to fully explain most medical procedures would be very expensive. Nothing is left out per se, but unnecessary detail isn't covered.

And we would never over explain something by force, which is what this law proposes.

[lovebeingamomma]

We have no idea what the US techs believe...they are just doing the US...it's not like they are hiring pro-life techs and having a pep talk beforehand telling them how to describe the baby is such a way as to make the woman feel so guilty that she cannot bare to abort. In fact do they even know why the woman is coming in for the US? I'm asking because I don't know, perhaps they are just told "6 week patient coming in, give a routine early US".

[_ktg_]

Originally Posted by geekgolightly

Which is why I said unless they ask? You sound a little miffed or something?

In any case, every doctor I have ever worked with, in every instance of informed consent, has not gone over every detail, unless asked. I have worked in five hospitals in four states and even more units, so it isn't that I am only exposed to one cultural climate. It may sound like informed consent, and it IS, in that you know what you need to know about the basic risks and benefits, the basic outline of what the surgery entails and what you can expect from recovery, but details? How many mm we resects or how terrible it is to get someone on and off the pump isn't explored in detail. What's the point, other than for it to be a scare tactic.

Thank you geek for directly pointing out the difference between what is usually informed consent (a discussion between a patient and doctor re procedure & risks) and what this first law proposes which may be overly detailed information being touted as IC but is really a scare tactic.

The best analogy I can think of is cancer, some patients want to know every detail, every risk, every side effect. Others maybe 50/50, and others still a general idea with the basics of informed consent covered to make sure they are "making" an informed decision. Informed consent is for many procedures a really delicate matter between patients and physicians.

[AdinaL]

I am going to step in here and remind all to please phrase your replies with respect and to follow the UA. This is a heated topic, which leads to other heated topics.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by geekgolightly

We don't go into details about surgeries or most other major medical procedures because, frankly, I think it would scare people off. Shoudl we do that to ensure that people completely understand what happens pre intra and post op during a CABG? Believe me, you don't wanna know. Or, if you do, you'll ask.

I think there is a distinct difference between an abortion and a CABG. The reason a woman would change her mind about an abortion from viewing an u/s is because she would find herself morally opposed to it, not because she'd be scared of the operation itself.

Maybe I'm taking a more holistic approach to medical decision making than some people think is right or necessary, but I think that a woman should be given all the information needed to make a decision that not only affects her body but also her conscience. I know I would want to be informed of the moral considerations of any medical procedure, not just this one, so that I could make a decision that is in line with my conscience. I don't see this as a scare tactic, quite the opposite. It is empowering the woman to make the right moral decision for herself.

A woman might be perfectly okay with having an abortion at 6 weeks based on what she sees on the u/s but not be okay with it at 12 weeks. This is a decision only the woman can make, but she needs full disclosure to make that choice.

[geekgolightly]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

I think there is a distinct difference between an abortion and a CABG. The reason a woman would change her mind about an abortion from viewing an u/s is because she would find herself morally opposed to it, not because she'd be scared of the operation itself.

Maybe I'm taking a more holistic approach to medical decision making than some people think is right or necessary, but I think that a woman should be given all the information needed to make a decision that not only affects her body but also her conscience. I know I would want to be informed of the moral considerations of any medical procedure, not just this one, so that I could make a decision that is in line with my conscience. I don't see this as a scare tactic, quite the opposite. It is empowering the woman to make the right moral decision for herself.

A woman might be perfectly okay with having an abortion at 6 weeks based on what she sees on the u/s but not be okay with it at 12 weeks. This is a decision only the woman can make, but she needs full disclosure to make that choice.

Let me know if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that it would be ok to force someone against their will to hear information they have decided they don't want or need.