Should it be legal for a doctor to refer a woman to an abortionist...

[Boojatta]

merely because the woman is carrying a fetus that is thought to be severely physically disabled?

Surely a woman can ask professors of medicine to refer her to a competent abortionist if she herself chooses to make that decision without being influenced by people who are supposed to be objective professionals.

[DURHAM D]

1. Yes. n/t

[JDPriestly]

2. Of course. It is medical advice.

It is the woman's decision.

[Boojatta]

5. Is the presumption that abortion is appropriate within the realm of

medical advice?

[JDPriestly]

7. Abortion is not against the law, and as long as it is not against the

law, it is up to the doctor and the patient to discuss it or not.

[Boojatta]

9. Sex between adults is not against the law.

Do you conclude that it's okay for a non-adult student and an adult teacher to discuss the possibility that, after the student reaches legal adulthood, the two might have sex with each other? Let's suppose that the student initiates the discussion. What do you think?

[DURHAM D]

11. Ok - Talk to my hand. n/t

[JDPriestly]

22. What in the world does a doctor's advice have to do with

a proposition from a teacher?

[Boojatta]

30. Proposition from a teacher?

My question was about a proposition from a student followed by a mutual plan for future sex. You should have no trouble seeing what provoked my question. I posted it as a reply to a specific post in this thread.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adsos Letter]

17. yeah...it's a medical procedure...

[UndertheOcean]

3. Yes.

[terisan]

4. Yes. Let us not gag the health providers and thereby take away their rights & the patient's.

[Boojatta]

6. Given that pregnancy is not an illness, don't you agree that

"client" might be a word that is more appropriate than "patient"?

[JDPriestly]

12. No. Have you ever been pregnant?

When you are pregnant you are a patient, not a client. A club foot is not an illness. Like pregnancy it is a condition. But, if you go to a doctor to have treatment for a club foot, you are a patient. Same goes for certain eye or nose surgeries even cosmetic surgery. According to my Random House Webster's Dictionary, the word "patient" when used as a noun means "1. a person who is under medical care or treatment. 2. a person or thing that undergoes some action." When I was pregnant and went to the doctor, I was under the doctor's medical care and when the doctor examined me, I underwent an action. I was a patient. Your post is absolutely silly.

[Boojatta]

13. You're entitled to your opinion, but why tell me when you could be telling...

a published author?

Menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause are not states of illness.

Source:
http://www.saidit.org/archives/jan01/article1.html

[JDPriestly]

23. Menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding and menopause

are not illnesses, but they are medical conditions and issues. Pregnant women seek medical advice to assist them in their pregnancy. The pregnant woman's relationship with her doctor is confidential and personal. Doctors are free to give the advice they believe in their professional opinion to be appropriate. If a woman does not like her doctor's advice, she is free to seek a different opinion from a different doctor.

No doctor forces a woman to have an abortion. It is perfectly legal to advise a patient on the alternative of abortion as long as the advice is given within any limitations of the law.

[Boojatta]

29. "It is perfectly legal to advise a patient on the alternative of abortion"

In some states it used to be perfectly legal to buy a slave.

[laconicsax]

32. So...

Abortion=slavery? Is that the point you're trying to make?

[Boojatta]

34. No, someone mentioned "it is perfectly legal" and I assumed

that there is some general principle that is then invoked to arrive at some relevant conclusion. If the same principle takes us to absurd conclusions, then the principle is unreliable and the "it is perfectly legal" premise is not very significant.

[laconicsax]

37. Any general principle can be taken to absurd conclusions

Your OP isn't about general principles, it's a question of legality. You asked the question, "should it be legal" and people responded that it is legal. Your subsequent arguments have been from an ethical standpoint, not a legal one. In questions of legality, responses affirming or denying legality are significant. But then again you're OP wasn't really about legality, it was about ethics but you framed it as a legal question.

I've gathered from this thread that you're also not asking a direct question to get an answer, you're asking a rhetorical question to make a point. Your point, as evidenced by your question and responses, would seem to be that since access to safe and legal abortions can present ethical dilemmas under very specific circumstances, the legality of access to abortions should be reconsidered. You asked of another poster, "If the fetus is perfectly healthy, then isn't abortion followed by elective surgical procedures...Which options should a doctor be required to propose?" Sounds to me that you have a problem with abortion and are grasping at straws to come up with situations where it should be illegal.

The legality of access to safe and legal abortion is not a question of ethics, it's a question of whether or not women are people, equal to men. Men have the right (a human right) to control their bodies and make decisions concerning their own health and welfare. If women are not allowed the same rights, then the implication is that they are lesser than men, and that they are not deserving of the same basic human rights.

Let's take a look at your original scenario. A pregnant woman is carrying a fetus that may be born severely disabled and she asks her doctor to refer her to someone who can perform an abortion. You ask if this should be legal. Let's simplify this to come to a more definitive conclusion.

A pregnant woman asks her doctor for an referral to someone who can perform an abortion, should this be legal? If it is legal, then women have the right to control their bodies. If it isn't, they don't. End of story.

[Boojatta]

38. We seem to have conflicting interpretations of the Original Post.

Your OP isn't about general principles, it's a question of legality.(...) your OP wasn't really about legality,

I'm getting conflicting signals here. When you wrote "it's a question of legality", what did you intend "it" to refer to?

you're asking a rhetorical question

No, I asked a question to get answers.

Your point, as evidenced by your question and responses, would seem to be that since access to safe and legal abortions can present ethical dilemmas under very specific circumstances, the legality of access to abortions should be reconsidered.

It wasn't my intention to make a "point" like that. If I wished to make that or any other statement, then I would simply make a statement.

Men have the right (a human right) to control their bodies and make decisions concerning their own health and welfare.

Are you referring specifically to men who aren't in the military, such as because there is not currently a military draft or because they did not choose to pursue a career in the military?

You asked of another poster, "If the fetus is perfectly healthy, then isn't abortion followed by elective surgical procedures...Which options should a doctor be required to propose?" Sounds to me that you have a problem with abortion and are grasping at straws to come up with situations where it should be illegal.

Then why did I ask about the doctor's utterances rather than asking about the doctor's actual performance of an abortion?

Let's take a look at your original scenario. A pregnant woman is carrying a fetus that may be born severely disabled and she asks her doctor to refer her to someone who can perform an abortion. You ask if this should be legal. (Underlining added by Boojatta.)

Could you quote the specific words that led you to that interpretation? I underlined some of your words for emphasis. Perhaps you can underline some of my words when you find the time to quote what I actually wrote.

A pregnant woman asks her doctor for an referral to someone who can perform an abortion, should this be legal? If it is legal, then women have the right to control their bodies. If it isn't, they don't. End of story.

A woman asks her doctor for a referral to someone who can help her commit suicide without creating nightmares for people who drive trains, without giving the police extra work, etc. Should this be legal? If it isn't legal, then do women not have the right to control their bodies?

[laconicsax]

39. Wow...just....wow.

Bravo.

[terisan]

25. Pregnancy is a health issue. Health includes wellness, and also includes illness. Don't mess around

with women's health.

[uppityperson]

57. So if I go to my doctor for a well-person checkup I'm a "client"?

You are too funny.

[wundermaus]

8. Regardless of the reasons...

A woman's physician should make all options available to her (and her mate in so much as it is possible) along with the related statistical scientific data associated with the risks of each choice. As a Physician, he or she should then do everything within his or her abilities to facilitate the patient's decisions or refer her to an other health care professional who can.

[pennylane100]

10. Fortunately women can now go to the yellow pages.

Of course, it is always good to get recommendations but she alone has to make that decision.

[The empressof all]

14. I'm not sure what the intent of your question is here.

If a woman is carrying a fetus that is not viable, or who in routine evaluation there is evidence that there is a problem with the health of the child if brought to birth-any competent medical provider would be required to discuss options for care. It would then be up to the woman to decide what course of action she is most comfortable with.

[Boojatta]

15. "would be required to discuss options for care."

Do you mean care, after birth, of the baby?

[Boojatta]

16. If the fetus is perfectly healthy, then isn't abortion followed by

elective surgical procedures to create poutier lips and thinner thighs an option for care? Which options should a doctor be required to propose?

[The empressof all]

18. I'm sorry, I don't believe you are sincere in this "quest"

You know there is no definitive answer to your question.

Let me give you an example.

A woman is carrying a fetus that if brought to full term would result in a baby without a brain. The baby will die. The woman has diabetes and is at high risk during pregnancy. Carrying a child even if healthy would put her life at risk. IMO a MD who did not discuss medical abortion in a case like this is negligent.

I have never heard of a situation where a doctor recommended or discussed abortion as a treatment option for a woman who wanted a child and the fetus she was carrying had eleven toes.

There is no black or white in the abortion issue.

[Boojatta]

20. Eleven toes would be unusual, but how would it be unhealthy?

[knitter4democracy]

41. I'm sorry, but I just had a friend lose her baby, and your tone here is getting to me.

Yes, she had to have an abortion. The baby had no brain. There was an opening at the bottom of the spine, and the brain didn't form right. She is heartbroken, but if she hadn't had the abortion, and the baby died, she was at high risk for infection and other complications, including death. She did the right thing, and even other friends of hers, including serious RTL people, all believe she made the right decision.

I hear stories of women who use abortion as birth control and to keep their figure. I have yet to meet one. Honestly, I wonder if they're just urban myths.

If a fetus is perfectly healthy and the mother chooses to abort the pregnancy, then I'm sure she has her reasons. Who am I to judge?

[Boojatta]

42. "she was at high risk for infection and other complications"

It sounds rather obvious that the doctor had a duty to propose treatment to reduce or eliminate the risk for infection of your friend.

If a fetus is perfectly healthy and the mother chooses to abort the pregnancy, then I'm sure she has her reasons.

In some cases, a reason might be that she is influenced by her doctor, especially if the fetus seems to be less than perfectly healthy.

[knitter4democracy]

44. That's a possibility, but then, it can go the other way as well.

A doctor can also influence her not to terminate when it was in her best interest to, could he not? That could be from his own biases, a concern that the testing isn't accurate in that case, an opinion of the patient's belief system, or pressure from a faith-based hospital system, let alone many other possibilities.

Please stop making the doctors the bad guys here. It takes two, as they say, and if a patient doesn't like what her doctor says, it's her responsibility to get a new one. I'm constantly amazed at the crap people take from their doctors, acting like there aren't any others to see. Even in areas that are low on doctors, especially specialists, there are always other options. My husband's a doctor, and I have left doctors, gotten second and third opinions, and reported doctors for bad care. Your first responsibility is to protect yourself, and if you have to get a new doctor, so be it. The only reason bad doctors stay in practice is because people keep going to them.

[we can do it]

19. Yes

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Only if she wants them to.

The question is ambiguous - are you asking "should doctors be allowed to refer women carrying disabled foetuses to abortionists without the woman's consent?" (answer: no) or "should women be allowed abortions if they have no other reason for wanting one that that the foetus will be disabled?" (answer: yes)?

[Boojatta]

27. I'm asking:

should a doctor, based on evidence that the fetus would become a physically disabled baby if brought to term, be permitted to supply information that the client did not request, information that presumes that an abortion is appropriate and desirable?

[knitter4democracy]

24. Two issues with your post:

First of all, the term "abortionist" does not exist in medicine. They are Ob/Gyns or FPs. Please use the right term. "Abortionist" and "abortion provider" are terms the religious right use to demean doctors who perform that set of procedures.

Secondly, a doctor can refer a patient to any specialist. Even if you think pregnancy is not a disease, it is still a condition. Patients are treated for conditions all the time and see specialists for them. A specialist is far more likely to be able to give a decent opinion about the viability of the fetus.

If what you're arguing is that a woman shouldn't need to go through her regular health care provider to get the referral, that's an insurance issue. If she has a PPO, she can find the health care provider she wants from their list and go there without a referral from her doctor. If she doesn't, she might end up paying out of pocket.

[noamnety]

40. Thank you for pointing out the bullshit language in the OP. (nt)

[Boojatta]

46. Regarding language

First of all, the term "abortionist" does not exist in medicine. They are Ob/Gyns or FPs. Please use the right term. "Abortionist" and "abortion provider" are terms the religious right use to demean doctors who perform that set of procedures.

Aren't you demeaning a particular group of doctors by identifying them as "doctors who perform that set of procedures" when it is clear from the context that you are talking about procedures associated with abortion?

[knitter4democracy]

50. Since that's how doctors refer to it, I don't believe it's demeaning.

Are you saying that performing abortion is demeaning? I know doctors who would heartily disagree.

Not all Ob/Gyns perform abortions. Some perform one or two of that set of procedures (there are several ways it's done, depending on mother's health, professional preference, facilities, etc.) but not all of them. Some perform all of them.

It's like my internist husband. He removes moles (not comparing a fetus to a mole, just comparing doctors), but he only does if they're not very deep and if he can do it with a punch biopsy or a scalpel method he likes. So, I wouldn't call him a surgeon just because he knows how to use a scalpel for one particular procedure. He's an internist who does that one particular subset of mole-removing procedures. It's not demeaning to say he removes moles but isn't a surgeon, just factual.

[uppityperson]

56. Thank you for your post. These were my 2 issues also, glad I read before posting

since you put it so well.

1. Doctors who do abortions are not "abortionists". OB/GYNs, surgeons, perhaps FPs may do abortions amongst the other things they do also.

2. Of course a doctor can and should refer a patient to a specialist.

If what boojatta is arguing is should a doctor express an opinion that an abortion might be a choice, they still can and should refer as doctors who do abortions can help further assess the situation and give advice to the pregnant woman. Any doctor I have known who did abortions also did other surgeries and procedures.

[terisan]

26. To prevent unwanted pregnancies, start with responsible sperm distribution.

If it is your true desire to limit legal abortions, turn to your fellow men and organize a mission to help them be responsible in their distribution of their sperm. Start with male self-control--which, alas, seems to be sadly lacking throughout the world. From Saudi Arabia to America there are men who seem to believe it is their right to impregnate women and then make rules governing those pregnancies. They need to govern themselves, not women.

[Boojatta]

28. "They need to govern themselves, not women."

The doctor might be a woman, but I didn't presuppose that the doctor is a woman. I didn't exclude the possibility that the doctor is a man. I won't argue with your idea that men in politics shouldn't govern the medical practice of women who perform abortions.

Do you believe that men in politics should govern the medical practice of men who perform abortions?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boojatta]

36. I agree with your general idea that prevention is better than cure.

Link to a thread that proposes preventative measures:

A New Religion (Or Does it Already Exist?)

[Kitty Herder]

60. Agreed. Good post.

:applause:

[XanaDUer]

35. Yes.

nt.

[gaspee]

43. interesting post

meant to do one thing. Come into the women's rights forum and start an argument with women over abortion.

You getting your jollies? Think you've converted anyone?

I think every woman who is told she is pregnant should be given all of the options. Including abortion. Do you think women are so stupid as to not even think of abortion unless the doctor talks about it?

You're a piece of work.

[Boojatta]

45. Thank you for disclosing that you consider my post to be interesting.

Come into the women's rights forum and start an argument with women over abortion.

I don't consider initiating a discussion in which all parties try to use valid reasoning to be a bad thing. Do you consider it to be a bad thing? Do you think that choice/abortion is not a women's rights issue? I consider this forum to be an appropriate place for this thread.

Think you've converted anyone?

Converted anyone from what to what? I'm satisfied that you consider the Original Post to be "interesting."

Do you think women are so stupid as to not even think of abortion unless the doctor talks about it?

Can you demonstrate that if a woman is influenced by her doctor to make a particular choice then she didn't even think of that choice until the doctor proposed it? I wouldn't say that a woman who doesn't think of abortion until her doctor proposes it is necessarily a stupid woman.

[plantwomyn]

51. Wonderful!

Then lets use "valid reasoning" shall we.
There should be NO law that censers ANY conversation between a Doctor and Patient. PERIOD.
As far as your client patient post, here are some questions for you.
When a woman goes to her OBGYN and is found to be pregnant, does she immediately become a "client"?
Is a woman who goes to an OBGYN for infertility a client of a patient?
After all it isn't a "state of illness".
Your client innuendo is a not so well veiled insinuation that abortion is all about profit. Get real. The idea that an OBGNY who performs abortion procedures is motivated strictly for the money is no more true than the motivation of an OBGYN who preforms invitro fertilization.
You linked to a "published author" and used ONE line of an article that seems to discount your OP.
In fact it seems to advocate that women be MORE informed and that they should not let society influence their decisions about their bodies.
It ends in a view that I doubt you agree with.
"And why, oh why, is it always women who are targeted? Men also suffer from insomnia, aging, urinary problems, hormonal and chemical imbalances, undernutrition and vitamin deficiency and cholesterol problems. So why are there no products and attendant media campaigns convincing them to fear and distrust their bodies? We know why. One: the patriarchy is not interested in controlling men's minds, bodies, emotions and self-images. Two: there's no money in it, since men notoriously ignore threats to their physical, emotional and psychological health throughout their lives. So what would be the point?

The patriarchy firmly believes that it's much easier to convince women we are weak than it would be to convince men that they are. We must not let them. Women are strong, vital, vibrant and complex, and our bodies are made to withstand tremendous changes. The fact of our strength is a huge threat to men: beware their attempts to undermine it. Menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause are not states of illness. They are further proof of our bodies' tremendous creative potential.

Life will absolutely kill you: no one gets out alive. The question is, how do we choose to move through it? Do we really need to drug ourselves every day of our lives from the moment we start bleeding until the day we die? Who stands most to gain if we do? Methinks it is not we women."

Methinks that the real problem is better stated in the article. And it isn't that pregnant women are "being influenced by people who are supposed to be objective professionals."
It is that society is screwed in it's view about women's health and well being.
BTW I hope for your sake that your Physician isn't objective. I want my Physician to be an advocate for me and I expect her to inform me of EVERYTHING she feels may affect my well being.

[Katherine Brengle]

47. GO AWAY.

Seriously, why do you insist on posting shit like this here?

Abortion rights DO NOT = eugenics.

Get the fuck over it.

[Boojatta]

48. Where in this thread are abortion rights and eugenics equated? A quote would be helpful.

[noamnety]

49. seconded. nt

[Boojatta]

52. If you put me on ignore for threads and replies, then

from your point of view I will have gone away. Of course, you don't have the power to prevent other people from reading my threads or replies.

In fact, I normally click on a button that says, "Post message." I can't recall clicking on a button that says, "Post message in a very firm manner that demands attention."

[Deep13]

53. Yes, and it is in fact legal. nt

[Eileen]

54. Definitely not!

Because an "abortionist" is not one of the disciplines of medicine but refers to a person who performs abortions illegally (you knew this of course but couldn't avoid using the slur). Any doctor who refers a patient for an illegal surgical procedure with a high probability of negative outcome should no longer be permitted to see patients.

As to whether a physician should, in the process of advising a patient on a course of treatment for a particular medical complication, include a professional colleague skilled in terminating pregnancies (or any other appropriate branch of medicine)- the answer is OF COURSE s/he should. To fail to do so would be a failure to provide information the patient requires in order to be capable of informed consent for any course of treatment subsequently chosen.

- Eileen`s always in process page -


Eileen

[Nobody]

55. Should it be legal for a GP to refer a man at high risk of prostate cancer to a specialist?

Yes, yes, and hell yes!

To the above question and yours.

It's not anyone's business to get between a doctor and the patient. Regardless of why the patient is seeing the doctor. It is already legal, and you don't get to sit in the consulting room with them. Any information you have about this hypothetical woman's hypothetical pregnancy is inadequate for you to make the decision for her. That is why SHE gets to make any decisions that need to be made. She is the one in the consulting room, it is her body at risk - even with a normal pregnancy, and she should be getting all of her options laid out in front of her.

Your "merely" is disingenuous. You assume that a severely physically disabled fetus won't cause complications to the woman carrying it. We're not talking blindness, deafness, polydactylism, or low birth weight here. "severe" could possibly die in utero, and there is nothing "mere" about it. It could harm the health of the woman.

Or is your "merely" simply your opinion of the value of the woman compared to the value of the fetus, however non-viable?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. yes, its called medical advice.

[Kitty Herder]

59. Absolutely.

It's medical advice. It's always the woman's choice whether she wants to follow that particular advice or not.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Greyhound]

62. Could this be the dumbest question ever? Could this Chet make all men look like idiots? n/t

[femrap]

63. Are you carrying a fetus with

physical disabilities? Is that why you ask? Or are you a doctor of medicine?

[bliss_eternal]

64. Um....yeah.

It's called a medical referral. All the other stuff, are the politics people have placed on this issue.

Oh and fyi, they aren't called abortionists. They are called doctors and/or medical providers. I find the fact that you call them "abortionists" telling, and offensive. But, clearly you are within your rights to call them whatever you like. Just know that your choice to do so says a great deal.