Need help with abortion ethics question

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
pipebomb_fetus.jpg
Members don't see this ad.
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
It is clearly implied, .dream.big, that if I'd had the misfortube to be stuck in her uterus, she would have killed me just as surely as she killed the fetus she had when she was 14.

Wouldn't you, trustwomen? I mean, just so we're clear... you would have aborted me, right?
Click to expand...
Um, you wouldn't have been "you" in any real sense of the word. Besides, I have no idea what I would have chosen in a different circumstance of pregnancy.

And, for that matter, it is biologically impossible that I could have been pregnant with a fetus that contained your exact DNA (assuming that this is the entirety of what you consider to be "you", which should make you glad you don't have an identical twin).

I can't really answer a hypothetical impossible question. I did have an abortion at age 14. You have chosen how you wish to interpret that. Nowhere did I say anything, or make any judgment, about your mother's decision.
 
And it's not just professional schooling that unwanted pregnancies put a stop to:
banjodark_mom.jpg
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Just remember folks, the most important lesson in all of this is:
Avatar_10.gif
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
Tryinig to be nice to me? By telling me what you would have done to me????

Right.
Click to expand...
Wow. Calm down. Go for a walk. Take a bubble bath. Then re-read her post. Trustwomen was being calm and reasonable in her posts. It is possible to have a spritied debate without resorting to personal attack.

If you are having psycological distress about almost being aborted, take it up with your biological mother, not a nice lady on SDN who has nothing to do with it and who likely already has gone through her own pscyhological distress.


Your story, while very important to you, is merely anecdotal. I could make your points just as easily if I talked about a "friend" or a person I met at the mall or saw on tv. It does not win this debate, as it has been used by many before you for decades to no avail. Your anecdotal story made a point. Now move on and add to your position.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
DropkickMurphy said:
And it's not just professional schooling that unwanted pregnancies put a stop to:
banjodark_mom.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't frequent some of our lower-class strip joints.

(Not that I do, but I had this friend once . . . )
 
H_3082_33.jpg

And they named the child Damien...... :smuggrin:
 
Ok, I've been reading this thing for a while, and although I may be a tad late (better than never), Mercapto, there's just a few things I have to get off my chest. Hence, the following:

I'm telling you this as a fellow Christian, and as a member of society - I'd never let you come within 10 feet of me for any purpose. You sincerely need to get a grip on life. The Bible was not a book to be taken literally, but figuratively, as Christ spoke in many parables (if you had actually read the thing, you would know this).

You're in the completely wrong profession. Try ministry, politics, or being the guy that answers the phone for the suicide hotline. And try to remember that opinions are like belly buttons.....everyone has one, not all are pretty, and not all need to be shown.

Have a nice day. :D
 
Just want to get in before the inevitable lockdown. Wow, I read a few posts on the first page and hesitantly skipped to the end, and although I'm curious about the evolution of this thread there's no way I have time to read it all so I apologize if this has already been said. I'm of the idea that we should all (idealistically) be physicians first and people second while we're on the job. One should try to be more of a conduit for medical knowledge and skill rather than a filter and remove personal beliefs and judgements to the best of one's ability. Medicine is science, it's supposed to be objective, and to be anything but is just as big a violation as purposefully injecting bias into research. I respect both sides' arguments; the pro-choice side is on shaky grounds with the morals of the thing because the science isn't clear. Life at conception, at 26 weeks, at birth?

Ethically (which is where this whole thing started) the pro-life side doesn't have a leg to stand on. You as a doctor have to treat with the patient, the patient being the pregnant woman not the fetus. Suppose you were molested as a child. Twenty five years later your molester is brought into your ED in cardiac arrest. You treat him to the best of your ability or you pack it up. The doctor that set the leg John Wilkes Booth broke escaping the Lincoln assassination knew he'd go to jail for treason, but his patient needed treatment and he provided it. Now, someone comes into your office for an abortion, you refer them. That's your treatment. You're under no obligation to do it yourself, but you are obligated to treat her as a physician. If she asks what she should do, you give her the medical and legal options and the risks and benefits associated with each just like you would a colonoscopy or whatever. That's it. To do anything else is a disgrace to the profession.

You guys are going to get yourselves banned you know, might want to cut it out. God love it, Dropkick's like the first kid at recess to start yelling "Fight Fight Fight!"
 
Tic said:
God love it, Dropkick's like the first kid at recess to start yelling "Fight Fight Fight!"
Click to expand...
No, I was the kid handing out brass knuckles and lengths of pipe. One of my friends would have been taking bets on the outcome.
 
the ethical leg of the pro-life position was the mandate to "First do no harm."
Click to expand...

You missed the part about the woman being the patient and not the fetus apparently. Good rules to live by if you have to make a decision: Life before limb, mother before baby, swallow before spit.
 
But for me, the prospect of laying down my beliefs and violating my oath because my patient wants me to do so simply doesn't sound that appealing.
Click to expand...

Ethics and beliefs are (or at least should be) flexible. What is acceptable or even the best course of action in one situation might be ludicrous or even foolish in another......the ability to adapt your ethics to the situation makes things a LOT simpler.
 
Swallow before spit....nice.....:laugh:
Anyway, I always looked at it that abortions should only be performed if the mother or fetus had their health in jeopardy. Call me selfish, but if there's a possibility I'm going to die in pregnancy, that kid is coming out whether he's ready or not. Granted, that sort of comes from my religious beliefs, more so personal opinion. There are better ways to not keep the kid if you don't want it (adoption, for instance). Or there's the old stand by - keep your snake in its cage and your legs together. :thumbup:
Either way you look at it, it all comes down to the potential future mom and what she wants.

Until tomorrow, all - I'm out.
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
Nope, didn't miss that. Nor did I claim that the fetus was my patient over the mother. Rather, I claimed that (1) my responsibility is to do no harm to anyone, and (2) if my patient wants me to do harm, for me, it's Oath > Patient.

Again, I'm aware that many people believe it's Patient > Oath. I can't help you there. But I can tell you that I don't buy it.
Click to expand...
I don't believe helping someone have an abortion is doing harm anymore than removing a wart or a benign tumor for reasons other than medical necessity. Therefore, I'm not violating the primum non nocere admonition.
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
Meh, for the past 2,500 years or so, the ethical leg of the pro-life position was the mandate to "First do no harm." Indeed, the original Hippocratic oath specifically says, "I will not give a woman a pessuary to induce abortion." As this was well before the birth of Christianity, the ethical conclusion against abortion was predicated on the notions that (1) we should do not harm, and (2) that killing a fetus causes harm.

Only recently has it been decided that the patient's desires trump the mandate to "do no harm." I'm not that impressed- an oath's an oath, and I truly believe that you owe fealty to your oath and conscience first, and to the patient second. You can disagree, of course, and I'll have a hard time proving which ethical "view" of this matter trumps the other. But for me, the prospect of laying down my beliefs and violating my oath because my patient wants me to do so simply doesn't sound that appealing.
Click to expand...

In practical terms I don't think any licensing body would want to come within a city block of a case like this. I have to say that I respect the strength of your beliefs, and your argument is compelling. Were I in your shoes though I would seriously consider staying away from fields like OB and Family Medicine. Unless you're looking for a fight, in which case it's just gaudy. People cheapen good ideas when they have to carry them around on a picket.
 
Tic said:
People cheapen good ideas when they have to carry them around on a picket.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that Martin Luther King Jr. was in such poor taste . . .
 
Has the context lost all meaning in both the bible and in the original oath which some say bans all abortions? Last time I checked, the bronze age people of the Old Testament died from war, famine, or some other disaster if they could not repopulate their communities. Anyway, as for the original oath, I find it interesting that it doesn't ban all abortions at all as some claim. I think we would should agree that it only banned the most damaging of techniques. I do think that we can't always take a relativistic stance on ethics, but the absolutist stance disregards context and individual situations.
 
trustwomen said:
...The woman can decide whether her uterus, her circulation, her immunoglobulins, her calcium, etc.. will be used to support a fetus. You can't compel her to do so anymore than you can compel her to give blood....
Click to expand...

Then she can get her abortion without my help.
 
Quix said:
That will depend on state statutes; for some states, pregnancy makes her an emancipated minor, capable of making her own decisions. State laws also govern parental disclosure requirements. If these end up not being issues (i.e., legally she is capable of making her own decisions), then it comes down to your personal conscience (there are conscience clauses for these kinds of polarizing procedures), but if there are no alternative clinicians capable of performing the procedure, it falls to you.
Click to expand...

Nope. If you, as a physician, are morally opposed to elective abortion it wouldn't matter whether or not there were other physicians in town. The patient is out of luck. She's either going to have the baby or find a back-alley abortionist which is, either way, her choice.

You guys are "pro-choice," right? Why is it that you make such a big deal about abortion being a woman's exclusive choice about which no one may dare comment and then you try to drag everybody into it?

I also don't understand the level of venom directed against physicians who are trying to live and practice according to a moral code which, other than not wanting to perform or refer for elective abortions, is not that much different than anybody else's. The world is not going to explode if a few physicians try to live a decent and morally upright life. God knows there's not too much of that gonig around.
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
Meh, for the past 2,500 years or so, the ethical leg of the pro-life position was the mandate to "First do no harm." Indeed, the original Hippocratic oath specifically says, "I will not give a woman a pessuary to induce abortion." As this was well before the birth of Christianity, the ethical conclusion against abortion was predicated on the notions that (1) we should do not harm, and (2) that killing a fetus causes harm.

Only recently has it been decided that the patient's desires trump the mandate to "do no harm." I'm not that impressed- an oath's an oath, and I truly believe that you owe fealty to your oath and conscience first, and to the patient second. You can disagree, of course, and I'll have a hard time proving which ethical "view" of this matter trumps the other. But for me, the prospect of laying down my beliefs and violating my oath because my patient wants me to do so simply doesn't sound that appealing.
Click to expand...


A doctor's main purpose is to serve and aid the patient with whatever means possible. (just like the responsibility of the gov. is to serve and aid the people). Religious or moral beliefs of the doctor should not be factored into patient treatment. You must still take the patients best interest to mind which is why if I were faced with this abortion case I would first talk to the patient about seeking counseling. The next step would be to (after they seek or refuse counseling) inform them about the dangers of abortion (such as future infertility). If they still want to go through with it then the abortion would occur.
 
Dr. Syzygy said:
A doctor's main purpose is to serve and aid the patient with whatever means possible. (just like the responsibility of the gov. is to serve and aid the people). Religious or moral beliefs of the doctor should not be factored into patient treatment. You must still take the patients best interest to mind which is why if I were faced with this abortion case I would first talk to the patient about seeking counseling. The next step would be to (after they seek or refuse counseling) inform them about the dangers of abortion (such as future infertility). If they still want to go through with it then the abortion would occur.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your good intentions. Just do me a favour and apply a critical eye to the so-called "dangers of abortion" you mention. Pretty much all the claims that anti-abortion types make about the medical danger of abortion (infertility, breast cancer, depression to name a few) have been thoroughly debunked by large-scale, methodologically correct studies. Especially when you compare that the major author on the anti side, David Reardon, bought his PhD from an online diploma mill and makes no effort to prove causation, beyond rhetoric (but man, can he find correlations with anything!).

And, of course, when talking to a pregnant patient, the medical risk of complication from abortion (which is small but real) must be compared and contrasted to the risks of complication from childbirth - which are actually much more significant those of than 99% of abortions (i.e. those under 20 weeks).

And Panda, once more, referring your patient appropriately is not "being dragged into it". It's simply professional practice, according to every medical association in the developed world. (I know, I know, in the backwater where you live, you have the legislators on your side, and you're really happy and proud about that. But you have no good reason to feel righteous about it, any more than would a Saudi man to feel righteous about stoning a woman for fornication because he has the law on his side.)
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
As for specialties, yeah, I had not intention whatsoever of going into either OB (vaginas = :barf: ) or Family Medicine (see Panda Bear's blog).
Click to expand...
Thank goodness for small favours. So unless you wind up in EM, you probably won't deal with abortion much if at all. (I semi-facetiously claim that anti-abortion EM docs are really just trying to drum up more work for themselves).

I recommend urology. No pesky women with their messy vaginas and lives.
 
trustwomen said:
Thank goodness for small favours. So unless you wind up in EM, you probably won't deal with abortion much if at all. (I semi-facetiously claim that anti-abortion EM docs are really just trying to drum up more work for themselves).

I recommend urology. No pesky women with their messy vaginas and lives.
Click to expand...
Um, women do go to a urologist for problems with the urinary tract. :confused: It's just that the vast majority of the practice will be males.
 
BellyDancingDoc said:
Yeah... because clearly I have a beef with (1) gays, (2) euthanasia, and (3) pagan gods.

I thought I made myself abundantly clear, tw. I don't care (1) who you sleep with (2) what you do to yourself- even including killing yourself or (3) who/what you worship.

I simply draw a bright yellow line at one human creature killing another. It really couldn't be simpler. So if that link was for everyone's benefit, that's fine. However, if it was for my benefit specifically, it couldn't be less relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Not to get off on a tangent but when people talk about euthanasia they usually mean physician assisted suicide. I'm confused as to how you consider that NOT one human creature killing another.
 
Anastasis said:
Um, women do go to a urologist for problems with the urinary tract. :confused: It's just that the vast majority of the practice will be males.
Click to expand...
I know that. I was sort of being facetious. But the bread-and-butter practice will be all men...
 
Tyronebiggums said:
I am on most issues a libertarian but not on abortion because someone has to speak for the unborn child. You had a previous post where you told some angry parents as they were leaving that "its her body she can decide" or something similar to that. I believe that argument is wrong. How can a women consider a male fetus especially as part of her body. Is the penis on the ultrasound hers? Are all women that give birth to males temporary hermaphrodites? Also you seem to believe that it is an easier choice for most women to kill an unborn child than it is to give it away for adoption? I think in a twisted way you are right because most women end up being so happy they didn't abort their child that it would be almost impossible to give the child up for adoption. I think abortion is an out for women who usually make poor reproductive choices (rape and potentially incest don't apply here) and because they are usually poor our society (actually 9 justices) decreed that they shouldn't have to "suffer" for their poor choices. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are exempt from responsibilities. Furthermore, tell me what is the logical difference between abortion and infanticide? I think it is difficult to do so. I am also wondering why American women survived from 1790 to 1973 without legalized abortion? And remember abortion is not very popular in America now. It is clear in opinion polls that the majority of American strongly dislike abortion and if the issue was put to a vote abortion rights would be strongly curtailed and in most states banned except in the case of rape or incest. I also think it is interesting to point out that the woman known as Roe in Roe vs. Wade is now staunchly pro-life.
Click to expand...

If you look at the USA before roe and at other countries that have outlawed abortion they have much higher maternal morbidity and mortality rates. Women who want to have an abortion will find a way...and that leads to infection, injury and sometimes death.
 
Tyronebiggums said:
Why then is or ever was partial birth abortion legal? Those babies can clearly live outside the mother but they are electively killed. Don't let anyone fool you, most partial birth abortions are elected with no danger to the health of the mother involved. The arguement that the child can live outside the womb is made a mockery by partial birth abortion.
Click to expand...

There is no medical procedure called a partial birth abortion. That was a phrase created by the pro-life movement to stir an emotional reaction. Please get your medical facts right.
 
I'm not sure what I can add to this... It does frustrate me that Christians (or individuals who are pro-life) are labeled as bigots, or likely to come after an abortion doctor with a gun. Obviously neither of these things are the way it is supposed to be. I also don't like being called uneducated or close minded.
Personally, I have a problem with abortion being used as birth control, but no problem with abortion for medically important reasons.
To trustwoman: I have no idea why you needed to have an abortion at 14 and will in no way make any sort of opinion about you based on that. I think its somewhat rediculous for bellydancerdoc to jump on you about what you did, when I'm sure you had reasons. We all live our lives and do what we can when that time comes.
It does bother me a bit that we keep talking about "the stressors on a woman" who is pregnant. I've had two children (the first of which was unwanted while I was pregnant) and can say that the stressors are not that great for a woman who has a healthy pregnancy. Yes, theres some inconvenience, some extra fat, stretched out muscles etc. But I'd say in general, the inconvenience to a woman is not worth ending the potential that the fetus has. Although a fetus can not survive outside the mother's body, all that is required for it to be able to is time. Somatic cells (as DKM so kindly brought up) can not claim this. Even labor itself, while not a fun experience, is worth it to bring a life into the world. As mentioned, I've had two (both without epiderals or other aneasthetics) and I'm thinking that with the use of epiderals, the pain of labor is not a good enough excuse to say the women should be able to abort the fetus due to the stress on her own body.
When I got pregnant with my daughter, I was not happy. I was a senior in college, planning on going to med school and believed that it was the end of my dream. If I had believed differently about abortion, I would probably have had an abortion. As it is, I have a beautiful daughter, son, and now I'm in med school. Although I would never perform an elective abortion (meaning mother's health is not in danger) I can understand why there are individuals who choose to do so. I do not think it is right, but I understand why and so try to understand them instead of judge them.
 
lilnoelle said:
As mentioned, I've had two (both without epiderals or other aneasthetics)
Click to expand...
lol, I vaguely want to high five you, haha. My mom had both her kids without anything either, and she was a doctor herself.
That's a whole other topic though, lol, and one where I instantly lose credibility because I'm a guy (although I'm reasonably certain that I'd do labor without anything either, probably because of my mother's influence).

Anyways, glad that I went to bed though, since apparently the thread kept going for hours and hours after I stopped replying lol.
 
Anastasis said:
Not to get off on a tangent but when people talk about euthanasia they usually mean physician assisted suicide. I'm confused as to how you consider that NOT one human creature killing another.
Click to expand...

In euthanasia, both human creatures are consenting. Not the case with abortion.

Note: I'm pro-choice. Just answering your question.
 
Tyronebiggums said:
I think abortion is an out for women who usually make poor reproductive choices
Click to expand...

Or the guy made a poor choice in condoms.

I mean really, it's ok to say that there's no recourse for a woman who makes "poor reproductive choices" but for men, eh, love-em and leave-em.

I just don't understand all of the debate. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe, and we could all get along minus this whole idea of "your rights end when they infringe upon mine." If you're pro-life, don't get an abortion. Fine. Just let the pro-choice people get them if they want to get one. I mean, it's the same idea that a person believes in the religion that they think is the right one, but it doesn't mean that just because you're religion X you need to outlaw religion Y because it goes against your beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

D
"Arizona Republicans File Bill to Punish Abortion Doctors with the Death Penalty"
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
323
Views
13K
dpmd
dpmd
Cornfed101
Deny applicants who object to performing abortions and physician assisted suicide?
2 3
Replies
142
Views
8K
deleted480308
D
wizzed101
Is it ethical/legal to withhold information in clinical publications?
2
Replies
76
Views
4K
freak7
freak7
docB
Is it Ethical to Prescribe Court Ordered Meds?
Replies
12
Views
2K
dragonfly99
D
T
Ethics of CONVERTING Terminal Patients
Replies
15
Views
3K
Terpskins99
Terpskins99
Top