Florida political idiocy. Again.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

I don't agree that a woman should just be able to walk into a clinic and demand an abortion without any questions asked

So who is the arbitor of what the "appropriate" questions to be asked are? Perhaps a waiting period is appropriate? Maybe for 'information' purposes, they should watch a video of an abortion..... or consult with a couple doctors (medical and psychologist).....perhaps a religious counselor......etc etc etc


I appreciate you guys' views and in a perfect world it's a laudable. But, if we are a country of individuals....and if we trust each other to make our own decisions on our own terms (perhaps this is the conflict). Then we need to let people figure it out for themselves.


The question really isn't whether the patient SHOULD do what you think is right....the question is whether you feel so strongly about these "shoulds", that you'd cross the line to LEGISLATE it vs trusting a woman to seek out the advise she needs on her own without legislation.

If you legislate it, then there will always be other people that would want to add to the list you started for various reasons. Andy notes the more exceptional and nefarious (to many) in his good post....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Andy9o8

I strongly disagree, in this instance. The proponents of laws like this do so not principally (or for many, not at all) out of concern for the health of young women as medical patients. It's a complete strawman.

Their agenda is, quite, simply, to make "Roe-legal" abortion so user-unfriendly (or even user-hostile) that the scared, family- and church-oppressed pregnant girl will be so intimidated by the process that she will fail to obtain the abortion she desires. This is especially so for girls living with their families, and needing 100% confidentiality, who often have just the "one chance" to sneak away and have their abortion; requiring more than one visit to the doctor will effectively preclude many of them from doing so. And the proponents of such laws know this very well.

Well stated.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I strongly disagree, in this instance. The proponents of laws like this do so not principally

Who said anything about a law forcing this?

In the end it is lawyers who will get rich if the doctor never has a discussion with the woman regarding possible side effects.

Not discussing side effects of an abortion would be a pretty clear breach of duty owed. Now add some injury and damages as a result of the injury and Doc is paying.

Of course the doctor has a duty to discuss the abortion with the patient.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So who is the arbitor of what the "appropriate" questions to be asked are?

The woman who can chose to go to a different health care provider if she doesn't like the questions asked.

Quote

The question really isn't whether the patient SHOULD do what you think is right....the question is whether you feel so strongly about these "shoulds", that you'd cross the line to LEGISLATE it vs trusting a woman to seek out the advise she needs on her own without legislation.

As usual an opposing viewpoint in SC is seen as a vote in favour of the other side. WHich is bullshit. I didn't indicate I agree with legislating a waiting period.

Though malpractice suits have already established that a doctor needs to discuss a procedure with the patient. It would also be considered common decency.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

As usual an opposing viewpoint in SC is seen as a vote in favour of the other side. WHich is bullshit.

I'm not sure what "other side" you are talking about.

Everyone seems to agree that consulting with a doctor and anyone else she chooses to consult with is a great idea. The point is the assumption about how that's implemented - required or not vs legislation vs a doctor's internally established procedural requirement, etc.....


You guys are simply talking about a practicality that seems good and obvious. Andy and I were simply taking that innocent comment and fleshing out if it matches real life politics, or the true intent of choice or not. (and how it can be abused by those with less than pure intentions.....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,589]

I didn't take SkyDekker's post as at all advocating any of the roadblocks that states like Texas have been putting in willy-nilly. Just the same kind of discussion that happens when, for example, one walks into the doctor's office wanting to have a mole removed.

I've been there; I'm actually a woman . The discussion in bluest-of-blue Massachusetts talked about what was going to happen, and what the effect would be on me, and on the fetus (very early -- maybe 6-8 weeks). The discussion included what to do with the IUD that was still in me as well . The doctor was extremely professional; it was clear, however, that the nurse disapproved. Because of the procedure chosen (insurance-paid), I had to come back the next day anyway, but the process was irrevocable once started on the first day. There weren't any morning-after or pharmaceutical abortions in those days as far as I know.

It's a serious decision. Much like plastic surgery, where many doctors want to make sure that the patient has realistic reasons and expectations for the procedure, there's validity to someone in the doctor's office asking if the woman has thought this through. If nothing else, a standard documented discussion, including asking whether there are any other parties that need to be informed or discussed, helps to protect the doctor if there is a change of heart later.

And treating it like a medical procedure, rather than a huge moral dilemma that the doctor has to insert themselves into, is the right way to go.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 898]

Sounds quite similar to my experience in Philly in the early 80's.
It was the right decision for the two of us then.
I still stand by it.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Everyone seems to agree that consulting with a doctor and anyone else she chooses to consult with is a great idea. The point is the assumption about how that's implemented - required or not vs legislation vs a doctor's internally established procedural requirement, etc.....

I must have misunderstood one of your earlier posts. You seemed to indicate that a woman should be able to get an abortion without even having a discussion with the doctor performing the procedure.

There is nothing else to implement. It already exists, it has existed ever since abortions have been legal and performed by licensed doctors.

[kallend 2,150]

I can't imagine that any physician/surgeon with an ethical bone in his or her body would ever conduct any procedure without previously discussing it with sentient patient.

Clearly there's no need to legislate this and/or put a time frame on it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

I must have misunderstood one of your earlier posts. You seemed to indicate that a woman should be able to get an abortion without even having a discussion with the doctor performing the procedure.

no issues - I'm just stating that any desire to legislate the "discussion" (for her own safety) is not better than legislating any of these other things -and, frankly, would open the door to other laws. the statement "between her and her doctor" is a PR attempt that can be abused to open the door.


BTW - my last knee surgery I consulted with the intern primarily and hardly even shook Dr Dave's hand until right before the operation.....So even there, the woman could get whatever medical or procedural info SHE NEEDS from another doctor or the intern, or lead nurse or whatever. If she's already determined she needs the procedure.....Dr Dave is VERY ethical and a leader in his field....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

Clearly there's no need to legislate this and/or put a time frame on it.

Clearly - yet is seems the left and the right love to legislate what most people would call "common sense" regardless "for our own protection".

So it's still a threat of them legislating what we'd consider the 'right' thing - and then even going overboard to over legislate excessively and off purpose for partisan purposes of social control/manipulation - types you like and types you're terrified of....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

kallend

I can't imagine that any physician/surgeon with an ethical bone in his or her body would ever conduct any procedure without previously discussing it with sentient patient.

Clearly there's no need to legislate this and/or put a time frame on it.

Agreed. Put another way, there's no reason why the medical consult and the procedure itself cannot or should not take place during the same clinical visit. And there's no reason why the specific content of the consult should be legislated (as some states do or have tried to do).

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

In the end it is lawyers who will get rich

You say that like it's a bad thing. What the f%#@ is wrong with people?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

rehmwa

So who is the arbiter of what the "appropriate" questions to be asked are? Perhaps a waiting period is appropriate? Maybe for 'information' purposes, they should watch a video of an abortion..... or consult with a couple doctors (medical and psychologist).....perhaps a religious counselor......etc etc etc...

The arbiter of what is "appropriate" and what is "not appropriate" are...

The doctor and the patient.

Period.

Once the state or the church or anyone else insists that "this question" or "that question" be asked, or that any other tests/procedures (like an ultrasound) be performed, or that any information be given (like watching a video of an abortion, or the stupid and inaccurate stuff some states require); then it is no longer solely between the doctor and the patient.

IIRC, doctor/patient confidentiality is up with lawyer/client, priest/penitent and husband/wife.

For good reason.

And I agree with Professor Kallend that it's highly unlikely that any clinic would agree to perform an abortion (or just about any other procedure) on a patient "on demand", without some sort of consult.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The doctor and the patient.

no......just the patient - the doctor is simply a VERY good resource (hopefully) for helping her with HER decision. She can choose to bring in anyone she wants to advise on her decision.



here's my simplist version of it, I can't get any more direct:
I choose if I want to buy a haircut or not.
It's not a "decision between me and my barber"
The government shouldn't require the barber to have pictures on the wall of specific styles. (but even if they did, it's still my choice - but it's unneeded and could be intrusive)
No one should tell me to come back tomorrow after thinking about it. I already thought about - it's why I'm there and not still at home "thinking" about it.

(I might ask the barber if my haircut will look good, I might ask my wife or friends what kind of cut she prefers on me. I might ignore some douchebag standing outside the shop with a sign that says "everyone needs a MoHawk". But the final decision is mine alone. Heck, I doubt any ethical barber would just cut my hair without asking "what'll it be fella?" first. Though I don't see how that makes him a decision maker for my cut one bit.)

Now, once anyone starts to pay for my haircut, then the rules might just change - just to stir the pot a little - welcome to government subsidized healthcare people.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Andy,

Quote

You say that like it's a bad thing. What the f%#@ is wrong with people?

My son keeps saying this also.

And I 100+% agree with your position on this. I've been pro-choice ever since I knew it was something to think about. Probably sometime in my late teens.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) Don't want to have an abortion => don't get one; end of discussion.

[rehmwa 2]

JerryBaumchen

PS) Don't want to have an abortion => don't get one; end of discussion.

you mean a woman can just CHOOSE for herself and not even ask her doctor first? wow!!!!

Mmmmmm- personal choice for the win

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

rehmwa

*** that is fine I guess if you do not actually believe int he Constitution or the Supreme Court....go ahead then, we will do it 'your way' instead.

Why so personal? He said he was just playing Devil's Advocate.

Because idle sock puppets are the Devil's playground.

[DanG 1]

Yeah, but if the barber said, "I'm sorry, you have a rare condition, and getting a haircut will kill you," then the barber has the righht to be involved in the decision. If there is a 90% chance the haircut will kill you, you can't force the barber to start cutting. He gets to be involved in the decision.

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 2]

DanG

Yeah, but if the barber said, "I'm sorry, you have a rare condition, and getting a haircut will kill you," then the barber has the righht to be involved in the decision. If there is a 90% chance the haircut will kill you, you can't force the barber to start cutting. He gets to be involved in the decision.

Well, you can't force an abortion clinic doctor to perform an abortion he thinks is dangerous to the patient, either. Not a good analogy.

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Yeah, but if the barber said, "I'm sorry, you have a rare condition, and getting a haircut will kill you," then the barber has the right to be involved in the decision. If there is a 90% chance the haircut will kill you, you can't force the barber to start cutting. He gets to be involved in the decision.

Until we approve the "National Free Haircuts for all Paid for by Bill Gates" Law....or the NFHPBGL (Niff Pubgle) - Or the Universal Hair Care Act.

Then the barber will be forced to provide the haircut regardless, and at half price, but still be liable for lawsuits if a customer is hurt.

You see, (he's probably making it up about the condition, because he's bald and simply hates to treat people with hair), further, passing that law to give that haircut just got 157 congressmen re-elected. It's really for my own good, if he refuses that haircut, then I might try to do it myself, in an alley, or in Thailand.




(You scenario is good, much like how a patient still has the SOLE authority to decide on their treatment - again, the doctor can only advise. If the doctor refuses, the patient can go elsewhere - (for now, the question of whether the doctor will be forced to do it or not - or bake a cake for the patient - is likely to be a future issue))

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Andy, that was the exact point of the analogy. Rehmwa keeps saying the doctor shouldn't be involved in the decision. I was pointing out that he/she should be involved in the decision, since he/she is the one who has to actually perform the procedure.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,120]

>Well, you can't force an abortion clinic doctor to perform an abortion he thinks
>is dangerous to the patient, either. Not a good analogy.

Exactly. Which is why it's up to the woman and her doctor. The day it is so safe that it can come in an over-the-counter kit then the doctor will no longer need to be involved in the decision.

[champu 1]

billvon

The day it is so safe that it can come in an over-the-counter kit then the doctor will no longer need to be involved in the decision.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4172603;#4172603

[Coreeece 2]

Andy9o8

***

Quote

Hey - the decision is between the woman "and her doctor"

Like any medical procedure, the doctor does have an obligation to explain the procedure and possible side-effects etc.

I agree that the decision in the end should be solely made by the woman. I don't agree that a woman should just be able to walk into a clinic and demand an abortion without any questions asked. That would simply be bad health care.

I strongly disagree, in this instance. The proponents of laws like this do so not principally (or for many, not at all) out of concern for the health of young women as medical patients. It's a complete strawman.
That may simply be due to politics. It's become exceedingly difficult to have an honest discussion about abortion. It's become ever so polarized that one is either deemed pro-choice or pro life. If you're pro-choice, you're a hypocrite liberal murderer. If you're pro life, you're conservative religious nut who hates women.

Any point pro or con is quickly to be dismissed based on ones political bias regardless of legitimacy.

There is simply no place for honesty and compromise in political victories these days.

Andy9o8

Their agenda is, quite, simply, to make "Roe-legal" abortion so user-unfriendly (or even user-hostile) that the scared, family- and church-oppressed pregnant girl will be so intimidated by the process that she will fail to obtain the abortion she desires.

How many of those girls would actually want to have that baby, but choose to abort out of fear of what their parents or boyfriend may think? How many choose to terminate life because of their fear of money? What a sad society.

I blame us all...

Andy9o8

This is especially so for girls living with their families, and needing 100% confidentiality, who often have just the "one chance" to sneak away and have their abortion

Again...it's just fucking sad. We should all be ashamed of ourselves. We should celebrate life, not destroy it. If our daughters sin, we should forgive them and not forsake them...we should support them rather then feeding them to the wolves.

There have only been a handful of men and women with the ability to change the world. Perhaps we've fucked ourselves by allowing that next man or woman to be aborted because of our selfishness. 40 million+ and counting.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour