Judge tosses right-to-know abortion law (Florida)

Palm Beach Post ^ | September 17, 2002 | Susan Spencer-Wendel

[RonF]

The president of the Palm Beach County Right to Life League, Richard Giesman of Palm Beach Gardens, said even then it wasn't enough. "If I'm going for open heart surgery, I want to hear all about it. I would want to see pictures of it. I want to understand everything," Giesman said. "We're doing an injustice to anyone not giving them the full information to make an informed decision."

Fine. Then ask, if you like. Or, if not, don't. But there's no law telling your cardiac surgeon that he has to show you certain pictures, or tell you certain things, whether or not you want to hear about them. For what other medical procedure does the law require a physician to provide certain specific information?

[RAT Patrol]

Since when is information a bad thing? I don't get it.

[jlogajan]

Since when is information a bad thing? I don't get it.

Since doctors are service providers for individuals, not state monkeys.

[RonF]

Information is a good thing. And were a physician to refuse to provide it to a patient who asks, or unknowingly provide false information, that physician is at best negligent, and perhaps committing a criminal act. Were a physician to knowingly provide false information, then the doctor is definitely a criminal.

But the state deciding who gets what information, regardless of whether or not the person involved wants to get it, and especially whether or not the physician thinks it's true information, and only in some cases and not others, is a bad thing.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"Fine. Then ask, if you like. Or, if not, don't. But there's no law telling your cardiac surgeon that he has to show you certain pictures, or tell you certain things, whether or not you want to hear about them."

That's the most ridiculous argument I've read today. What you're saying is if the patient doesn't ask then the doctor shouldn't have to tell. Absurd. It is not OK for a doctor to withhold information regarding the ramifications (especially negative) of treatment. Do you think a pro-abortion doctor is more or less likely to tell a patient about the like between breast cancer and abortions than a pro-life doctor? Do you think the doctor has a responsibiility to the patient to tell them of such a link? Only if asked?

[RonF]

No, what I think is that the case hasn't been made that there's a reason why the state needs to define the communications between a physician providing an abortion and a patient more than they need to define the communiations between a physician providing a cardiac bypass and a patient.

[FourtySeven]

I believe, but I could be wrong about this, that when you undergo any medical procedure (except for abortion maybe, I don't know, because I don't know anyone who's had any) that the doctor, or at least the institution (say the hospital) performing the procedure must get the patient to sign a consent form, which contains all the known risks associated with the procedure. By signing the form, which again has all the known risks, you release the hospital/doctor from any liability, at least in theory, which is why patients are required to sign such things. I'm pretty sure about this, but again, I could be wrong.

If I am right though, and the same "consent form" isn't given to women who are undergoing abortion, or if the form doesn't contain, say, the possibility that abortion can cause breast cancer, (in other words, not ALL the known risks) then there's a serious deficiency there that must be addressed, in my opinion.

[Verginius Rufus]

It's not hard to figure out what side the reporter, Susan Spencer-Wendel, is on. Most of the piece reads like a press release from Planned Parenthood.

[John O]

For what other medical procedure does the law require a physician to provide certain specific information?

I don't know. What other medical procedure is uniformly fatal to 50% of the people who undergo it?

God Save America (Please)

[MHGinTN]

You are making the natural assumption that abortionists and their murder for hire are part of the medical profession. They aren't and the rabid supporters of the serial killing work hard to exempt the abortionists (serial killers) from the accountability oversight found in the medical community at large.

That a law merely restating the obvious (requirement/need for patient informed consent) is deemed 'unconstitutional' exposes the hypocrisy of the murder for hire crowd, including this activist judge.

[FourtySeven]

You are making the natural assumption that abortionists and their murder for hire are part of the medical profession. They aren't and the rabid supporters of the serial killing work hard to exempt the abortionists (serial killers) from the accountability oversight found in the medical community at large.

This is astounding to me, that abortion, which, if anything else, must be a medical procedure, doesn't have to submit consent forms to the "patient". It truly is a double standard. I think this issue should be persued vigorously.

Maybe the best way to get it done would to have a few women who went through an abortion sue the practitioners for not making them sign a consent form. They weren't properly informed of the risks. This is a medical procedure. Get the malpractice insurance companies in on this, if they're liable to loose millions in a large class action law suit, believe me, private industry will get this changed, and steamroll right over the activists. I just thought of this, but I think it might be something.

[Old Professer]

For what other medical procedure does the law require a physician to provide certain specific information?

Simple prescription comes to mind.

[Sloth]

I've got no problem putting ridiculous, unreasonable restrictions on murderers in the first place, but it seems to me this is just a regulation on truth in advertising, like with many other things (drugs, cars, etc.).

[agrace]

Then the case certainly needs to be made. Abortion doctors are often paid for the number of abortions performed. They often also own the clinics in which they practice. Money is also to be made through the harvesting of tissue. It is definitely a for-profit industry.

As a result, it would stand to reason that an abortion doctor would be much less inclined to inform patients of potential risks and consequences if doing so would cause the patient to change her mind and subsequently cause a loss of revenue for the doctor and/or facility.

Also, often the drs don't even see the patients until they are in the "operating room." A counselor, not even a member of the medical profession, might be the one to go over any medical aspects or questions the patient might have. Since when do counselors advise patients of the risks of open heart surgery?

Abortion providers are quite under-regulated. There's argument currently about whether they should be required to have RNs on staff - how absurd is that? These clinics tend to fall through the cracks because they don't want to be regulated like other medical facilities, fight desperately to avoid regulation, and as a result they don't feel obligated to report many things that happen, and are not required to do so anyway. It's an abominable industry all around.

[RonF]

I've signed consent forms in hospitals. For one thing, they state that there are risks, but I haven't seen one that gives the specific risks associated with the specific procedure I'm getting performed; their language is more generic. Also, the language in there is specified by the hospital's legal staff (likely in conjunction with their malpractice insurer's lawyers), and is not specified by the government. Finally, the government doesn't tell the physician how to review that document with you; whether the doctor goes over it with you step-by-step, or just hands it to you and says "read and sign this", or something in between. So why is abortion different?

[RonF]

Abortion doctors are often paid for the number of abortions performed. They often also own the clinics in which they practice. Money is also to be made through the harvesting of tissue. It is definitely a for-profit industry.

None of these, with the possible exception of the sale of tissue, is unique to abortion services. What, you think a cardiac surgeon is paid a straight salary? I'm curious, by the way, about what kind of money is being made off of harvesting of tissue from abortions.

As a result, it would stand to reason that an abortion doctor would be much less inclined to inform patients of potential risks and consequences if doing so would cause the patient to change her mind and subsequently cause a loss of revenue for the doctor and/or facility.

Once again, this would apply to any doctor or facility, regardless of the service they provide. Unnecessary surgery is a scandal that occurs thoughout the medical profession, not just abortion. Hysterectomy procedures are famous for this. And while its wrong no matter where it occurs, I see no legal reason why abortion should be singled out.

Those who oppose abortion often like to attach the word "industry" to it, as though this was something dirty, and unique to the provision of abortions. It's hardly unique. Medicine is an industry across the breadth of medical services provided, and a very big and profitable one. The for-profit segment of it is growing rapidly, but abortion services are a very small percentage of that.

Understand, too, the difference between for-profit and not-for-profit. Both actually make a profit. They have to. The difference is that for-profit entities, if they are successful, take some of their profits and distribute them to investors/stockholders. Whereas a not-for-profit has to take whatever profits they make and invest them back into the business's founding purposes. So the directors or managers of a financially successful not-for-profit hospital could decide to buy a new MRI machine, or create a money-losing community clinic, or vote themselves fat performance bonuses.

[RonF]

"Simple prescription comes to mind."

Well, sure, I've been given prescriptions where there's plastered "Don't drink and take this stuff" on it. And there's a handout printed off. But nobody says the doctor has to read it to me, or stand over me while I read it, or even make sure I can read it.

[philetus]

"I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art."

A line from the fiction novel:THE OATH OF HIPPOCRATES

[FourtySeven]

So why is abortion different?

Got me!