_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
1237 points (98.4% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3453 readers
1003 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
Texas disagrees. Please see above source.
No one's going to risk their livelihood on precedent. While legal precedent is important, it doesn't provide meaningful reassurance when the stakes are this high.
Do you have any specific examples of such cases?
EMTALA does not apply once the patient has been admitted to the hospital. It applies to ER care only.
There is no medicolegal standard for "life-threatening" That determination is, to a degree, subjective.
In many cases, a patient will come to the ER in a non life threatening clinical state and get sicker following admission. EMTALA no longer applies to these patients.
If, in retrospect, a doctor performs an abortion and its decided that the mother's life was not at risk, they face a felony charge.
Per the Texas Supreme Court, exceptions apply only when death or serious physical impairment is imminent (which is probably too late to save the patient and have a good functional outcome, unfortunately)
The problem here is legislation. There is no medical error. Practitioners are making a risk-benefit assessment and choosing not to martyr themselves.
I feel that you're not familiar with medical practice and are oversimplifying a very complex issue.
I'm going to leave it at this: Doctors and lawyers know more about this than you or I do and it borders on conspiracy peddling to think that not saving a life is being done through simple negligence here.
That particular case needs to be fleshed out in court and may well be an anomaly but there's a reason she is not the only one and the source of that is in the legislature.