_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
1131 points (98.5% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3441 readers
1668 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This was a string of malpractices. The Missouri law didn't prohibit an abortion in this case, but it was incorrectly judged by the doctors/their legal staff. The law allows abortions in case of a medical emergency - which this was.
They are also caught in the ethical dilemma of "if I don't treat this patient, it is highly likely they'll be gravely injured or die." Missouri law defines "emergency" elsewhere, and this case fits that bill. There was no actual legal impediment here.
"At risk" isn't an emergency. All pregnancies have risk to the life of the mother.
An abortion was proactive healthcare. The law prevents it.
If your water breaks at 16 weeks, that is an emergency. According to the lawsuit, they knew this quite well:
It could not be a more obvious example of a medical error. When the law says this is allowed, the law is not at fault.
You again quoted "at risk". High blood pressure is "at risk". It's not an immediate life threatening condition requiring surgery.
She wanted an early abortion but didn't get it because she voted against it.
You skipped over the "if she does not receive immediate medical treatment" part. Normal pregnancies, outside of giving birth, do not require immediate medical treatment at all times to avoid the risks outlined above. When you're giving birth, you then receive the medical treatment you need.
If she received immediate care, she would no longer be at risk. In the same way if you take drugs for high cholesterol, you will no longer be at risk for a heart attack.
Stopping risk is preventative care, not an immediate life threat.
If someone was stabbed and at immediate risk of bleeding to death, by your logic, immediate treatment would be "preventative care" and therefore not necessary. There's a league of difference between taking a pill to stave off a death that will happen within a few years, and receiving physical intervention to stave off a death that will happen in a matter of days.
If someone is stabbed and not bleeding to death, they aren't immediately dying. They will be given a bandaid and sent home.
She wasn't at risk of dying when they sent her home. The early abortion would have been preventative care.
Are you ok with every woman at 10 weeks being allowed an abortion as long as she can find any doctor that tells her, "You might be at risk." Because all pregnancies are a risk.
The doctors stated that if she didn't receive immediate treatment, she was at risk of death. Similarly, if someone was stabbed and at risk of death, they would receive treatment. She should have received treatment.
If every doctor decided that every pregnancy was a severe, immediate enough risk to warrant an immediate abortion, those people should be prosecuted. That would be a grave medical error. This has not happened, and for the sake of society, I hope doctors do not come to that conclusion.