Posted on 05/17/2010 8:58:40 PM PDT by GonzoII
I find no reason to change my comment. I also do not find any reason for this mother to kill her unborn child “in self defense.”
This guy is just misinformed about it only happening in the last 3 months of a pregnancy. My niece delivered her baby almost 3months premature AFTER spending about a month in the hospital for preeclampsia. Or....maybe we were just imagining it because someone on the internets said so.
He’s lying. Plain and simple.
Hmmmmm....who do I believe? My own experience and a respected researcher and clinician, or some internet guy who says he’s a liar? ROFL!
Ethics and religious doctrines aren’t the same thing, though certain religious zealots imagine that they are. As you’ve pointed out, this case boiled down to a self-defense situation. Rational ethics indicates that the abortion was therefore clearly right, even under ethical views that are generally opposed to abortion.
But if a Catholic (or any other religious) hospital wants to operate on principles that would deny a patient in this situation a life-saving abortion that she wants, and would at most offer to risk her life by subjecting her to the stress and delay of being transported to a different hospital that would perform the abortion, then they better be operating 100% with private funds, and better make it 100% clear to anyone contemplating being admitted to the hospital, that the institution operates according these extreme religious principles. If someone adheres to such extreme principles themselves, and wants to subject themselves to treatment at a hospital which will inflexibly adhere to them, I’ll respect their right to make that choice, but not with a single penny of my money supporting the place.
Most “respected clinicians and researchers” vehemently disagree with this one (and it’s not clear who “respects” him other than some ideological zealots). It’s always possible to track down a licensed physician who will spout some preposterous claim in furtherance of an agenda. Happens all the time. But they’re not “respected” by anyone who doesn’t share their view that their particular religious or political agenda takes precedence over observable scientific facts.
Why would you assume this? The bishop was not on the committee that made the decision, and HIPPA is *very* strict about prohibiting the release of medical information to parties that aren't directly involved in treating the patient. The bishop is certainly not legally entitled to "all the information" about this treatment, and could only legally obtain it with the consent of the patient. Since his intent in investigating it was apparently to cause trouble for the hospital personnel who made and carried out the decision in accordance with the patient's wishes, it seems unlikely that the patient would have authorized a release of her medical information to the bishop. So if he has "all the information" he almost certainly got it illegally. More likely, he actually has very limited information.
The article says that the bishop "released the following statement today in response to the acknowledgement by officials at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center to the media". This suggests that the only information he has is what was released to the media, which clearly would be very limited, as it cannot include any details which could result in identification of the patient.
The simple fact that the bishop has knowledge of the case at all would indicate that he has access to the medical information. As far as I know, the HIPPA regulations do not apply to hospital officials (and the bishop has an ex officio board position) as long as patient privacy is maintained (e.g. the patient's name is not revealed). So yes, I think there is every reason to believe that the bishop has full knowledge of the case.
About what happening in the last three months of pregnancy? All he said was, "A pregnant mother’s cardiovascular system does have 'major increases,' but they only happen 'in the last three months of pregnancy,' Byrne explained."
Are you disputing that a pregnant mother’s cardiovascular system has major increases in the last three months of pregnancy?
I’m disputing that it ONLY happens in the last 3 months. It’s more typical for it to occur in the last 3 months, but I have a family member who was in her 5th month when it struck.
“It” being preeclampsia/pregnancy related hypertension. Personally, my blood pressure always went up around the 3rd/4th month but it was just slight. Instead of 110/70, it would be 125/85 and would stay that way throughout.
It seems that you are creating a strawman argument because the doctor never said that preeclampsia/pregnancy related hypertension only happens in the last three months.
HIPPA regulations apply to anyone who isn’t directly involved in treatment or treatment decisions about a patient. Even other medical staff in the same unit where a patient is being treated, or was treated, can be fired just for looking at the patient’s information (even if they never breathe a word of it to anyone else) — this has happened on numerous occasions, when computer records showed an employee had accessed a patient file without any legitimate need to do so. “Ex officio” board members, or any board members for that matter, are not entitled to review individual patient files.
In all likelihood, the reason his statement was made “in response to” the public statement to the media made by hospital officials, is because that’s where he got his information, and other people saw it and called up his office demanding that issue a public statement about it. If he actually had any specific information that would back up an assertion that the procedure wasn’t necessary to save the patient’s life, then he certainly could have said so without identifying the patient. If he has such information, but didn’t mention it, then it’s probably because he came by the information illegally — but I think it’s far more likely that he simply doesn’t have it.
On a related note, per some of the stuff posted here from outside sources, about how Catholic doctrine permits essentially fraudulent abortion procedures to save the life of the mother, e.g. removal of an entire tube or even the uterus, but not removal of just the fetus — this should be flat-out illegal in any medical facility that receives any federal or state funding. Performing an unnecessary procedure that sterilizes a woman and/or has other harmful physiological effects, just in order to be able say “we didn’t do an abortion” is simply obscene. If the pregnancy needs to be terminated to save the woman’s life, then terminate the pregnancy, but don’t destroy organs that don’t need to be destroyed. That’s medical malpractice and should qualify as aggravated criminal assault as well.
“But given just pulmonary hypertension, the answer is no,” to abortion, said Byrne.
Byrne emphasized that the unborn child at 11 weeks gestation would have a negligible impact on the woman’s cardiovascular system. He said that pregnancy in the first and second trimesters would not expose a woman with even severe pulmonary hypertension – which puts stress on the heart and the longs – to any serious danger.
Please pay particular attention to the following statement and keep in mind that this physician is not intimately familiar with this woman's case. A pregnant mother’s cardiovascular system does have “major increases,” but they only happen “in the last three months of pregnancy,” Byrne explained.
The doctor is saying that major increases in a woman's cardiovascular system does take place but ONLY IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS.
Since you bolded those statements, I assume that means you not only read them but also wanted to emphasize those words. Physicians will tell you that life threatening hypertension does occur prior to 20 weeks, although it is rare.
"The point of fetal viability is estimated at anywhere between 21 - 24 weeks, he indicated, at which point a baby can artificially be delivered and have a good shot at surviving. In the meantime the mother’s pulmonary hypertension could be treated, even by such simple things as eliminating salt from her diet, exercising, or losing weight."
This physician is only talking about hypertension here because women who are in a medical crisis with regards to pulmonary hypertension are not simply told to change their diet, exercise and lose weight. My niece was hospitalized (in her 2nd trimester contrary to Dr. Byrne's assertions), placed on bedrest and wasn't even allowed to get up to pee in a toilet, let alone walk down the hallway for a little light exercise. What Dr. Byrne is talking about is like discussing apples and oranges. As he said, pulmonary hypertension alone is not necessarily a threat to a woman's life, but complications can come up, not to mention preexisting conditions, that can change the whole scenario. Hypertension in pregnancy doesn't always lead to preeclampsia/eclampsia. But when it does, the cases aren't anywhere near the same.
Just as this physician didn't know anything else about this woman's case other than it was related to pulmonary hypertension, I wonder if the Bishop had the same information and based his statements on that. Unless the woman gave someone permission to share her specific medical information with him, he would not be privy to it.
"because the doctor never said that preeclampsia/pregnancy related hypertension only happens in the last three months."
Since changes in the cardiovascular system is what aggravates the hypertension in a pregnant woman, what else could the doctor be saying with regards to those last 3 months? Additionally, if that isn't what he is saying then why would it help your argument to point it out??? Typically, those who are dealing with hypertension have more problems in the final 3 months because of those major changes but as he pointed out, many of them can be treated until the baby can survive outside the womb and be delivered with relative safety. But, it can cause life threatening problems at any time, not just those last 3 months.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.