Roe v Wade is rumored to be overturned soon.

[Browns99]

There were legitimately people that would use the "unhinged" argument when people would advocate for the human rights of enslaved persons in in the 18th and 19th centuries. It's a classic means of attempting to control a narrative by implying the individual on the other side of the table are hysterical because of their ridiculous beliefs that people should have rights and that being angry to any degree that people's rights are being violated is a sign of this hysteria. Good for you both, perpetuating a long and proud conservative tradition of gaslighting anyone that has a problem with people that believe others have human rights.

Ok Dr. Shock, whatever you say.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Trefoil]

I’m confused about what state laws say concerning abortion for ectopic pregnancies or for cases where the pregnancy could threaten the mother’s life. I haven’t seen or heard an argument anywhere from the pro-life crowd that abortion in such a case would not be warranted, but it seems like some of these state trigger laws don’t mention it at all. But inevitably when a doc aborts a fetus to save the mother’s life, what will their legal defense be if there’s no clear legal established precedent? Of course I could be completely wrong about that

It’s more the language on the bills that confuses what is and is not an abortion. For instance, the language in Louisiana’s bill states that termination of any fertilized egg constitutes an abortion, which is clearly a bad definition of pregnancy. The fear is that using bad language will make physicians reluctant to actually perform abortions in these cases. I have seen drafts of bills that do not carve out medical emergencies as a valid excuse, so while there are no official laws stating this, it is a possibility that one will get passed given that state legislatures are rewarded for playing to the extremes, and not for understanding medicine.

 

[Mad Jack]

It’s more the language on the bills that confuses what is and is not an abortion. For instance, the language in Louisiana’s bill states that termination of any fertilized egg constitutes an abortion, which is clearly a bad definition of pregnancy. The fear is that using bad language will make physicians reluctant to actually perform abortions in these cases. I have seen drafts of bills that do not carve out medical emergencies as a valid excuse, so while there are no official laws stating this, it is a possibility that one will get passed given that state legislatures are rewarded for playing to the extremes, and not for understanding medicine.

Ohio abortion bans on the way following death of Roe • Ohio Capital Journal

Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ohio legislature is set up to move forward with abortion bans in the state.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

The Ohio ban is at 6 weeks and only allows doctors to defend themselves after being charged. It allows no exceptions for mental health, rape, or incest, and only if the mother's life is at risk, though what constitutes this is left undefined in the medical sense. Ohio just became the most dangerous state in the country to be an OB/Gyn, and they already had a shortage.

 

[Lost in Translation]

Liberals don't? You are too funny. You are probably the same person that believes it's ok to have an abortion during a full term delivery.

I can’t actually tell if you seriously think abortions are actually performed at 39+0.

 

[Mad Jack]

I can’t actually tell if you seriously think abortions are actually performed at 39+0.

Less than 1% of abortions are happening after 20 weeks, but there's a few thousand late, and sometimes very late, abortions every year. Probably not many doctors willing to do an abortion at 39 weeks though.

As an aside, I honestly I don't believe in elective abortion after 24 weeks unless there are significant health issues, as a 24 weeker can survive with significant medical assistance. You want to deliver early and offer it up for adoption? Fine. But there's actually a decent number of third trimester abortions that are due to financial or emotional stressors and that just doesn't feel right.

 

[Browns99]

I can’t actually tell if you seriously think abortions are actually performed at 39+0.

I was being sarcastic..........

 

[Lost in Translation]

robably not many doctors willing to do an abortion at 39 weeks though.

NO doctor would. Period.

I was being sarcastic..........

Man I don’t know how stupid you may or may not be.

 

[deleted1100659]

When I was a lot younger, as a teen I was all about pro life. Then, I transitioned from idealistic to realistic. There is a reason most people get an abortion, pure common sense would tell you that forcing a baby to be born to someone who isn't capable of caring for a child is bad for the mother and the child. Child raised without a good family--->more inclined towards poverty--->more inclined towards crime. I mean this whole thing is idiotic. I have patients who have severe psychosis getting pregnant and they are in no way fit to be mothers, sounds tough but it is what it is.

Its a shame because im far from liberal but I can't identify with the republican party because they're so out of touch and it appears like they're trying to go from moderate to extremist. I mean, people can barely afford gas, let alone buying a house among all the other 2835 issues going on, so now lets ignore all that and focus on overturning roe vs wade? Like come on guys.

Sometimes I want to run for congress or senate, it seems like the bar is set pretty low as we have quite a few "characters" in the seats.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

When I was a lot younger, as a teen I was all about pro life. Then, I transitioned from idealistic to realistic. There is a reason most people get an abortion, pure common sense would tell you that forcing a baby to be born to someone who isn't capable of caring for a child is bad for the mother and the child. Child raised without a good family--->more inclined towards poverty--->more inclined towards crime. I mean this whole thing is idiotic. I have patients who have severe psychosis getting pregnant and they are in no way fit to be mothers, sounds tough but it is what it is.

Its a shame because im far from liberal but I can't identify with the republican party because they're so out of touch and it appears like they're trying to go from moderate to extremist. I mean, people can barely afford gas, let alone buying a house among all the other 2835 issues going on, so now lets ignore all that and focus on overturning roe vs wade? Like come on guys.

Sometimes I want to run for congress or senate, it seems like the bar is set pretty low as we have quite a few "characters" in the seats.

Do you have a pulse and have at least one functioning neuron? If yes, then you are qualified. Congrats!

 

[IonClaws]

Less than 1% of abortions are happening after 20 weeks, but there's a few thousand late, and sometimes very late, abortions every year. Probably not many doctors willing to do an abortion at 39 weeks though.

As an aside, I honestly I don't believe in elective abortion after 24 weeks unless there are significant health issues, as a 24 weeker can survive with significant medical assistance. You want to deliver early and offer it up for adoption? Fine. But there's actually a decent number of third trimester abortions that are due to financial or emotional stressors and that just doesn't feel right.

Not that physical appearance necessarily has any bearing on what species an animal embryo is (human included), particularly early in development, but even at 8 weeks, you can't say this doesn't look like a human baby. Or at least a caricature of one...

 

[Mad Jack]

Not that physical appearance necessarily has any bearing on what species an animal embryo is (human included), particularly early in development, but even at 8 weeks, you can't say this doesn't look like a human baby. Or at least a caricature of one...

I, quite frankly, couldn't care less what an embryo does or doesn't resemble at 8 weeks. It's not a viable life until 22ish weeks.

 

[IonClaws]

I, quite frankly, couldn't care less what an embryo does or doesn't resemble at 8 weeks. It's not a viable life until 22ish weeks.

Why does viability matter? They're still objectively a human life.

 

[AMEHigh]

I haven’t either which is why it’s so confusing that it’s a main talking point of the pro-abortion crowd.I keep asking because I can’t find any evidence of abortion for ectopic pregnancy/miscarriage/endangered patients not being allowed by the states that are anti-abortion. When I ask for the evidence pro-abortion proponents don’t seem to have that evidence either. What I have seen are states have laws allowing for that in terms of ectopic pregnancy/miscarriage/endangered mothers life or just simply not addressing it. To me not having a law specifically addressing the life of a mother being endangered wouldn’t prevent a physician from performing those in medically necessary cases. I don’t see a doctors certification getting pulled for providing life saving measures for a situation that would end with the mothers death. That’s something that can be brought to courts and defended to set precedence as well if it even comes to that. It seems like more emotionalism to make the roevwade decision appear worse than it actually is with a bunch of “what if’s” rather than actual facts of the situation. I think the real issue is that pro-abortion people simply want abortion on demand and are trying to use a talking point that’s simply not supported at this time to try and shift focus from what’s actually being banned here, which is abortion on demand and not medical emergency related abortion.

So what is happening right now is laws in each state are not very clear and lawyers are telling physicians what they can and cannot do. If you work for a hospital system, your hands are pretty much tied when administrators and lawyers tell you what you cannot do. In addition, especially when it comes to surgery that takes a whole team, it’s not likely that everyone is going to go against what lawyers are telling you you can’t do. It is causing a lot of confusion, so no this isn’t people overreacting.

The laws don’t define that bleeding internally for 1 hour vs 5 hours is considered threat to life. So it can lead to a delay of care when trying to figure out the interpretation of the law. I don’t think any of us physicians became doctors to have the potential of a felony, court case, fines and jail time. Since I work in this space I know what is happening on the ground and it’s mass confusion.

One hospital system banned plan b for a day and then resumed. And obviously a day can make a difference in emergency contraception Major health system stops, then resumes Plan B amid Missouri's abortion ban ambiguity

People who take methotrexate for autoimmune conditions are having difficulty getting their refills. The arthritis foundation has had to make a statement

Arthritis Foundation Statement on Methotrexate Access | Arthritis Foundation

Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade has impact on access to methotrexate. Read what the Arthritis Foundation is doing to protect arthritis patients.

www.arthritis.org

 

[Mad Jack]

Why does viability matter? They're still objectively a human life.

Objectively they have nothing resembling consciousness, and thus are legally not alive, nor are they alive in the biblical sense of having taken the first breath, nor can they survive independently for even a moment making it a viable life scientifically. They are a *potential* human life. And it is up to the mother and fate (one in twenty will still result in a miscarriage) to determine if that potential manifests.

 

[IonClaws]

Objectively they have nothing resembling consciousness, and thus are legally not alive, nor are they alive in the biblical sense of having taken the first breath, nor can they survive independently for even a moment making it a viable life scientifically. They are a *potential* human life. And it is up to the mother and fate (one in twenty will still result in a miscarriage) to determine if that potential manifests.

I asked why viability matters, not why consciousness, breathing, or legality matter.

Consciousness has no bearing on what species an organism is nor is it a requirement for life.

Legality is a terrible and unscientific way to define what is alive.

The fetus is a member of the human species and they utilize energy, grow, and develop. By any Biological definition, they are indeed alive.

The inability to survive without attachment to the mother means the fetus is not viable, not that the fetus is not alive. Since they are already alive and obviously members of the human species, they are already human lives, not "potential" human lives. Their mortality rate has no bearing on this nor does it mean they are only "potential."

 

[Mad Jack]

I asked why viability matters, not why consciousness, breathing, or legality matter.

Consciousness has no bearing on what species an organism is nor is it a requirement for life.

Legality is a terrible and unscientific way to define what is alive.

The fetus is a member of the human species and they utilize energy, grow, and develop. By any Biological definition, they are indeed alive.

The inability to survive without attachment to the mother means the fetus is not viable, not that the fetus is not alive. Since they are already alive and obviously members of the human species, they are already human lives, not "potential" human lives. Their mortality rate has no bearing on this nor does it mean they are only "potential."

They're not human lives, period. If they were we would be obligated to keep every braindead individual alive forever, withdrawal of care would be unethical under any circumstance, and fertilized embryos would be "lives" while they sit in a freezer. Your beliefs are impractical and what they impose would be an abhorrent affront to the dignity and free will of humanity

 

[Cuthbert]

They're not human lives, period.

Do you mean that they are not human, not alive or both? Either way, both of those stances are indefensible.

 

[Mad Jack]

Do you mean that they are not human, not alive or both? Either way, both of those stances are indefensible.

They are not human lives. The two words together mean something different than each separate. A potato and a salad have a different meaning than a potato salad.

 

[Cuthbert]

They are not human lives. The two words together mean something different than each separate.

Really? How so? “Human lives” do not refer to humans who are living (alive)?

I think you’re painting yourself into a corner on this logic.

 

[Mad Jack]

Really? How so? “Human lives” do not refer to humans who are living (alive)?

I think you’re painting yourself into a corner on this logic.

A person who is braindead is human and alive but not considered to meet the criteria for being a human life in the legal, moral, or ethical sense. An embryo is not yet a developed human- it lacks the physical capability of cognition in every sense. It's no more capable of experiencing pain or having a meaningful thought than, say, cells taken from your body and cloned in a petri dish. These cells would also be human and alive, but not a human life, because they completely lack cognition and are not a complete person. A fetus ultimately develops to the point of sensing and interpreting stimuli around the 24-25 week mark, which also happens to be about when a fetus is viable with heroic assistance (though you can save them a bit earlier with some steroids and a lot of hard work and luck).

 

[Cuthbert]

These cells would also be human and alive, but not a human life

That's a non sequitur; it's not logical. You can argue that it's not a person based on an arbitrary definition; but (as you said) it is both human and alive, thus a human life.

I understand your goal: to define fetal personhood as something that suddenly comes into being during development so as to maintain abortion laws (in certain states at this time). I can at least respect that so long as you admit you are defining what a "person" is. However, trying to tie that in with a "human life" is just flat wrong both logically and scientifically.

 

[Mad Jack]

That's a non sequitur; it's not logical. You can argue that it's not a person based on an arbitrary definition; but (as you said) it is both human and alive, thus a human life.

I understand your goal: to define fetal personhood as something that suddenly comes into being during development so as to maintain abortion laws (in certain states at this time). I can at least respect that so long as you admit you are defining what a "person" is. However, trying to tie that in with a "human life" is just flat wrong both logically and scientifically.

I disagree. Do you believe someone that is braindead qualifies as a human life? How about a body with anencephaly? What if you removed the head of a braindead individual but kept the body alive? From a moral and ethical perspective, what defines a human being alive is cognition, in both legal and medical contexts. I agree with those contexts. All of the above examples would be considered to be not alive, and therefore not a "human life" per any reasonable definition. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, and not one I view as valid or reasonable

 

[Cuthbert]

I disagree. Do you believe someone that is braindead qualifies as a human life? How about a body with anencephaly? What if you removed the head of a braindead individual but kept the body alive? From a moral and ethical perspective, what defines a human being alive is cognition, in both legal and medical contexts. I agree with those contexts. All of the above examples would be considered to be not alive, and therefore not a "human life" per any reasonable definition. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, and not one I view as valid or reasonable

Brain dead people aren’t dead - or we would just call them dead. It’s still a life. If we had a way to cure them, we would do that rather than unplug them. However, there is no potential with brain death. You therefore don’t hear anyone call a fetus braindead.

 

[Mad Jack]

Brain dead people aren’t dead - or we would just call them dead. It’s still a life. If we had a way to cure them, we would do that rather than unplug them. However, there is no potential with brain death. You therefore don’t hear anyone call a fetus braindead.

They are not considered alive by the legal or moral standards of our society, hence why hospitals can discontinue care without the family's consent in cases of brain death. They are not alive, they are animated meat that cannot survive without associated support. An early fetus is similar- it has no cognition or consciousness, and a mother is not obligated to provide it life support until such time as it is a conscious human.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

They are not considered alive by the legal or moral standards of our society, hence why hospitals can discontinue care without the family's consent in cases of brain death. They are not alive, they are animated meat that cannot survive without associated support. An early fetus is similar- it has no cognition or consciousness, and a mother is not obligated to provide it life support until such time as it is a conscious human.

I'm enjoying the discord so far. Question for you maybe you can shine some light on. A key difference between a fetus and someone brain dead is if appropriate nurturing occurs, the fetus develops into a sustainable life with consiousness and personhood. However no amount of nurturing or care provided to a braindead person brings them back to consciousness nor personhood, their future is set Do you have a good rebuttal to this?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Brain dead people aren’t dead - or we would just call them dead. It’s still a life. If we had a way to cure them, we would do that rather than unplug them. However, there is no potential with brain death. You therefore don’t hear anyone call a fetus braindead.

Brain dead people are absolutely not considered alive. They are dead. We make the distinction for the lay public.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm enjoying the discord so far. Question for you maybe you can shine some light on. A key difference between a fetus and someone brain dead is if appropriate nurturing occurs, the fetus develops into a sustainable life with consiousness and personhood. However no amount of nurturing or care provided to a braindead person brings them back to consciousness nor personhood, their future is set Do you have a good rebuttal to this?

A fetus has never know consciousness, and nothing is extinguished from its experience. I'm no philosopher though, my opinions are just opinions as much a any other

 

[Captain_Falcon]

A fetus has never know consciousness, and nothing is extinguished from its experience. I'm no philosopher though, my opinions are just opinions as much a any other

But the distinction is that it very well will develop consciousness if given the right things (i.e. normal developmebt) whereas braindead individuals never will regardless of the resources devoted to them. So I don't think it is a fair comparison

 

[Mad Jack]

But the distinction is that it very well will develop consciousness if given the right things (i.e. normal developmebt) whereas braindead individuals never will regardless of the resources devoted to them. So I don't think it is a fair comparison

It isn't, of course, it's just the closest thing I had. It isn't a perfect analogy because one doesn't exist. A seedling sprout is no more a living tree than a felled log is one, and comparing the two is inaccurate, but neither is a tree.

 

[Dr Meow]

But the distinction is that it very well will develop consciousness if given the right things (i.e. normal developmebt) whereas braindead individuals never will regardless of the resources devoted to them. So I don't think it is a fair comparison

Why does the potential to develop consciousness matter at all?
Most sperms have the potential to become a human. Most eggs have the potential to become human. You mix them together, and you get a near infinite potential of making an infinite combination of humans.
Yet, every week, we "kill" millions of these potential humans. Every month, a women's own body kills millions of these potential eggs (due to androsteinedione) even though only one get is released.

Yet, I don't hear you or any "prolifer" complain about SPERM RIGHTS or "You're KILLING PEOPLE by ejaculating into a tissue"
Is this one additional step in logic too difficult to grasp?

If you think only zygotes qualify as potential then that seems to be very logically inconsistent. Cherry picking at its finest.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

It isn't, of course, it's just the closest thing I had. It isn't a perfect analogy because one doesn't exist. A seedling sprout is no more a living tree than a felled log is one, and comparing the two is inaccurate, but neither is a tree.

Fair point, I'll have to think on this.

Why does the potential to develop consciousness matter at all?
Most sperms have the potential to become a human. Most eggs have the potential to become human. You mix them together, and you get a near infinite potential of making an infinite combination of humans.
Yet, every week, we "kill" millions of these potential humans. Every month, a women's own body kills millions of these potential eggs (due to androsteinedione) even though only one get is released.

Yet, I don't hear you or any "prolifer" complain about SPERM RIGHTS or "You're KILLING PEOPLE by ejaculating into a tissue"
Is this one additional step in logic too difficult? Maybe it takes an IQ of 101 to grasp it?

The difference is multiple
1. A sperm or egg is distinctly separate from each other, and without the other is not a fetus right? There joining automatically forms so many different distinctions from either of them.
2. We don't choose to destroy the sperm or egg, whereas pregnant individuals would actively decide to destroy the fetus

 

[Dr Meow]

Fair point, I'll have to think on this.



The difference is multiple
1. A sperm or egg is distinctly separate from each other, and without the other is not a fetus right? There joining automatically forms so many different distinctions from either of them.
2. We don't choose to destroy the sperm or egg, whereas pregnant individuals would actively decide to destroy the fetus

Ok, then lets at least give a partial sentence to everyone for "involuntary manslaughter" since they didn't choose to ejaculate and the women didn't choose to ovulate.

And what does being separate have anything to do with not being potential? There potential is still there. If anything there's even more potential now because a lot more combinations exist and you're killing all of them.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

Ok, then lets at least give a partial sentence to everyone for "involuntary manslaughter" since they didn't choose to ejaculate and the women didn't choose to ovulate.

And what does being separate have anything to do with not being potential? There potential is still there. If anything there's even more potential now because a lot more combinations exist and you're killing all of them.

Perhaps a difference is there is a choice to have sex which has the potential consequence of getting pregnant. Whether or not individuals have sex they will produce eggs and sperm

 

[Cuthbert]

Why does the potential to develop consciousness matter at all?
Most sperms have the potential to become a human. Most eggs have the potential to become human. You mix them together, and you get a near infinite potential of making an infinite combination of humans.
Yet, every week, we "kill" millions of these potential humans. Every month, a women's own body kills millions of these potential eggs (due to androsteinedione) even though only one get is released.

Yet, I don't hear you or any "prolifer" complain about SPERM RIGHTS or "You're KILLING PEOPLE by ejaculating into a tissue"
Is this one additional step in logic too difficult to grasp?

If you think only zygotes qualify as potential then that seems to be very logically inconsistent. Cherry picking at its finest.

Genetics is not hard to grasp. You’re getting into ad hominem territory. Chill. It’s possible to have a civilized discussion on this topic.

It’s actually very simple and quite logical: Sperm have no potential to become human - they are only half a set of genes. You said the key part yourself - “you mix them together” with an egg.

A human, on the other hand, has a whole set of chromosomes. Humans go through different phases of development throughout their life. This starts at fertilization and requires time and nutrition.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Genetics is not hard to grasp. You’re getting into ad hominem territory. Chill. It’s possible to have a civilized discussion on this topic.

It’s actually very simple and quite logical: Sperm have no potential to become human - they are only half a set of genes. You said the key part yourself - “you mix them together” with an egg.

A human, on the other hand, has a whole set of chromosomes. Humans go through different phases of development throughout their life. This starts at fertilization and requires time and nutrition.

And the lucky ones get even more (or even less) than a whole set and have a lifetime of impairments and health conditions related to it.

 

[Dr Meow]

And the lucky ones get even more (or even less) than a whole set and have a lifetime of impairments and health conditions related to it.

By that logic, it seems that a complete chrx count isn't a necessary requirement to be a human either.
I vote Involuntary Manslaughter for anyone who spermifies a tissue. 1 million accounts.

 

[Cuthbert]

And the lucky ones get even more (or even less) than a whole set and have a lifetime of impairments and health conditions related to it.

Life is not always fair unfortunately. But I’ve know many people with chromosomal abnormalities that are happy to be alive - I would not presume to judge their worth.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Life is not always fair unfortunately. But I’ve know many people with chromosomal abnormalities that are happy to be alive - I would not presume to judge their worth.

But it’s okay to force other families to deal with that unfairness right?

 

[Cuthbert]

But it’s okay to force other families to deal with that unfairness right?

Human lives either have worth or they do not. That judgement is not and should not be based on chromosomes.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Human lives either have worth or they do not. That judgement is not and should not be based on chromosomes.

So yes, you would be okay for a family to lose their livelihood and structure they hold dear by force. Okay.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

I still haven't seen a response to individuals getting pregnant as a consequence for their choice of having sex. If you don't have sex you don't get pregnant. An argument can be made that people are simply looking for a way out to not deal with the consequences of their actions

 

[Dr Meow]

I still haven't seen a response to individuals getting pregnant as a consequence for their choice of having sex. If you don't have sex you don't get pregnant. An argument can be made that people are simply looking for a way out to not deal with the consequences of their actions

That argument doesn't warrant a response

The real discussion is "at which point is something considered not just alive but treated with the same rights and consequences as a conscious human?"

Since a zygote has no more consciousness or even a brain than any ol skin cell, the line for me is drawn early on. Killing that cell is no morally different than cutting your skin on a stick or spitting out some cheek cells. Potential of being a human isn't a reason. We kill potential all the time and not out of choice.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

That argument doesn't warrant a response

Why not? Is it because there is no good reply or what? I'm being serious here. We don't let people off the hook for lots of other consequences after individuals make choices.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Why not? Is it because there is no good reply or what? I'm being serious here. We don't let people off the hook for lots of other consequences after individuals make choices.

Sure we do

 

[Captain_Falcon]

Sure we do

And lots of times we don't. There are countless examples for both. I am asking why this is a time actions with consequences are not held accountable

 

[Cuthbert]

So yes, you would be okay for a family to lose their livelihood and structure they hold dear by force. Okay.

I wouldn’t say that. I just think that killing innocent children is wrong. Human rights are important.

I also think it’s wrong to imply that some children have more worth than others. Especially based on chromosomes. Eugenics is unethical.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

I wouldn’t say that. I just think that killing innocent children is wrong. Human rights are important.

I also think it’s wrong to imply that some children have more worth than others. Especially based on chromosomes. Eugenics is unethical.

You wouldn’t say that, but in doing so, you are saying that. I don’t really care either way, but it’s best to be honest.

Or, it could just be moral relativism… which is how most people function anyway.

 

[Cuthbert]

You wouldn’t say that, but in doing so, you are saying that. I don’t really care either way, but it’s best to be honest.

Or, it could just be moral relativism… which is how most people function anyway.

You can put words in my mouth all you want. It doesn’t make it so. I have answered and responded to your points and questions but you have chosen not to respond to mine. Are you ok with killing a human life based on its genetics?

 

[SurfingDoctor]

You can put words in my mouth all you want. It doesn’t make it so. I have answered and responded to your points and questions but you have chosen not to respond to mine. Are you ok with killing a human life based on its genetics?

I have personally pushed Propofol and Fentanyl when the parents told me that they felt their child was suffering and had a poor quality of life.

 

[Cuthbert]

I have personally pushed Propofol and Fentanyl when the parents told me that they felt their child was suffering and had a poor quality of life.

That’s unclear to me. Have you pushed it on an otherwise healthy child with a chromosomal abnormality or are you talking about a terminally ill child in the PICU?