Standard of Care

[fuegorama]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Following a speaker at my school and a quick Cochrane search it looks like 8.7 women per 100,000 die carrying a pregnancy to term.
At the same time, only 0.6 women per 100,000 die undergoing elective abortion.
With these statistics, shouldn't pregnancy termination be offered to each person presenting with pregnancy?
This does not have to be a physician recommendation, simply a recitation of the risks and benefits of the different options.

 

[IdiotBoxen]

I'd like to know what the source of that figure is. Whether it's just 1st world countries (e.g. US/UK/AU/JP, etc...) or 3rd world. Because that first figure sounds like it is definately not including the 3rd world.

Try Africa, the maternal fatality rate is incredibly high... does that mean they should abort? Certainly not as far as most local services currently go. Abortions in Africa are frequently out the back with a piece of metal tubing or a coathanger. Unaware of the fact that the uterus is normally anteverted, they push the coathanger through the posterior fornix, into the pouch of douglas, and further. Then they get a really nasty infection and die. It's almost safer to carry to term than conduct one of those abortions.

In the west... no. We shouldn't. Pregnancy is not a freaking disease. Stop treating it like one. Yes, women die when pregnant. It is inevitable. If a woman wants an abortion, that's fine under most circumstances. We shouldn't offer ever woman an abortion. That's just crazy.

 

[fuegorama]

I'd like to know what the source of that figure is. Whether it's just 1st world countries (e.g. US/UK/AU/JP, etc...) or 3rd world. Because that first figure sounds like it is definately not including the 3rd world..

http://www.safemotherhood.org/facts_and_figures/maternal_mortality.htm
while not the site quoted by this lecturer, it does have some fairly amazing numbers.
The abortion stats came from the lecture powerpoint and were supposedly compiled using Cochrane.

Try Africa, the maternal fatality rate is incredibly high... does that mean they should abort? Certainly not as far as most local services currently go. Abortions in Africa are frequently out the back with a piece of metal tubing or a coathanger. Unaware of the fact that the uterus is normally anteverted, they push the coathanger through the posterior fornix, into the pouch of douglas, and further. Then they get a really nasty infection and die. It's almost safer to carry to term than conduct one of those abortions..

It sounds like they need better laws and trained providers. I take some comfort in your understanding of how backstreet abortions go wrong. I fear that we will soon be seeing women present with these catastrophes in our country. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/HealthBenef.html

[edit11-20 1338]

 

[Nuel]

Let's reconstruct the argument of the OP.

1) Mortality rates are lower for abortive procedures relative to pregnancies.
2). Unstated premise: If abortions have lower mortality rates than full pregnancy deliveries, abortion should be an option for every pregnant woman.

Conclusion: All pregnant women should be offered with abortion options.

On the face of it this looks like a good argument. The first premise may be true but we shouldn't worry ourselves with it. The second premise is an attempt to give us a reason as to why women should be effectively granted some sort of "right" to abortions. Having abortion as an option does not follow from the fact that it gives lesser mortality. Let's take the implications of this premise to an extreme: suppose all women decided to have abortions, there would be no pregnant women left. If that becomes the case, how can we assess the effective value of the proposition that it is better to give people abortion options as opposed to having full-term pregnancies? Choice, surrounding circumstances and medical expediencies are weightier issues in deciding who should get abortions. Consequently, the second premise that lower mortality rates are associated with abortions does not give us a good reason for granting all pregnant women this option. Therefore, the argument presented is very weak.

 

[umass rower]

Your argument makes perfect sense, except that twice as many people survive a successful pregnancy as a successful abortion.

 

[fuegorama]

The second premise is an attempt to give us a reason as to why women should be effectively granted some sort of "right" to abortions. Having abortion as an option does not follow from the fact that it gives lesser mortality.

Although it is in jeopardy women do have a right to abortion. Decreasing risk to the patient, the mother, is a very real reason to inform about the lower risk of abortion.

Let's take the implications of this premise to an extreme: suppose all women decided to have abortions, there would be no pregnant women left. If that becomes the case, how can we assess the effective value of the proposition that it is better to give people abortion options as opposed to having full-term pregnancies?

And I think we all can recognize this as a pretty far extreme. However, since this isn't the case we have to take the stats as they stand. If two people present with fertilized ova to their physician. If one of them elects to terminate the pregnancy early. She will have a lower risk of mortality than the other patient.

 

[Nuel]

Although it is in jeopardy women do have a right to abortion. Decreasing risk to the patient, the mother, is a very real reason to inform about the lower risk of abortion.

Yes, she can be aware, but the statistic you provided is not a reason to grant women this right. There are far better reasons to give women the option of abortion.

And I think we all can recognize this as a pretty far extreme. However, since this isn't the case we have to take the stats as they stand. If two people present with fertilized ova to their physician. If one of them elects to terminate the pregnancy early. She will have a lower risk of mortality than the other patient.

Based on the statistic, yes, however, this is not a reason why she would want to have the abortion. The best it could do is to make the patient feel "safer" as regards the abortion procedure. Nobody gets pregnant and says, well, because abortion statistically has less mortality, I am going to quit having my baby and have abortion for the reason that the statistic offers me this option. What makes her think she couldn't contribute to the statistic? There must have been a better reason for her to elect to have an abortion. It is not as if pregnancy is categorically a disease or anomaly that must be cured with an abortion.

 

[fuegorama]

It is not as if pregnancy is categorically a disease or anomaly that must be cured with an abortion.

I think that depends on your POV. For example, if you are a single, jobless female struggling to pay for her education and you recognize that competent parenting/carrying a baby to term is not possible, then your pregnancy is a pathological condition that can be relieved with abortion.


The original question is whether refraining from discussing the risks of pregnacy breaches the standard of care. I would argue that every delivery should be elective.

 

[Diane L. Evans]

For person to person difference of opinions --Please ongoing threads through private email