|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:40 pm
I.Am sachiko_sohma Now in case of health issues, it would be great to save both but alot of times you can't and in that case I think it's o.k. to abort cause not about not wanting a kid or not wanting to be pregnant but about life or death. Though if that was me, I don't know what I do, if it is uncertain and a possible that i'll still live then i'll take that risk but if I was told that there is no chance at all then I won't risk it ( what if at the time I was already a mother? I couldn't leave them). Actually, it's very rare that you have to pick either the child or the mother. If it is then way do almost every pro-choicer that says that abortion is o.k. keep saying that? I have some opinons about that but i'll keep them to myself.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:17 pm
ALmost so rare that the argument could be considered errelevent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:33 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle ALmost so rare that the argument could be considered errelevent Interesting, I went to the ED baord and now they keep saying that there is a death risk for every pregnancy so everyone one can abort (or something like that). But not many people die from child birth like say way back when there was no real medical help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:53 pm
There is a death risk for birth. But its really no longer dependant on the mothers health as much as it was back then. Its skewed facts. The real deal is that abortion is far more lethal then actualy child birth. 3-4 times last i read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:37 pm
sachiko_sohma Pyrotechnic Oracle ALmost so rare that the argument could be considered errelevent Interesting, I went to the ED baord and now they keep saying that there is a death risk for every pregnancy so everyone one can abort (or something like that). But not many people die from child birth like say way back when there was no real medical help. There is a risk, of course. But that's like saying there's a risk of you dying every time you walk down the street. Sure, it's true that there's a slight chance. But it's not like every time you walk down the street you are going to have to fight for your life. Unless you choose, like, a back alley in New York. Then you're probably done for. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:17 pm
I.Am sachiko_sohma Pyrotechnic Oracle ALmost so rare that the argument could be considered errelevent Interesting, I went to the ED baord and now they keep saying that there is a death risk for every pregnancy so everyone one can abort (or something like that). But not many people die from child birth like say way back when there was no real medical help. There is a risk, of course. But that's like saying there's a risk of you dying every time you walk down the street. Sure, it's true that there's a slight chance. But it's not like every time you walk down the street you are going to have to fight for your life. Unless you choose, like, a back alley in New York. Then you're probably done for. sweatdrop I know theres a risk, but the way some talk make it sound like you'll die if you give birth so you have to abort to everytime. Now when someone is really dying then that's understandable but to abort just because there is potental ( there is in every pregnancy) is just wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:25 am
I think if at all possible every effort should be made to save them both. I don't think one life holds any more value than the other however sometimes it is not always possible. In the case of ectopic pregnancy (assuming its tubal) the baby can't survive past about 8 weeks anyway. That is WAY too premature to survive. If the mother does not abort she faces repturing a tube which would make her chances of having more children cut by 50% and in some cases it can even kill the woman because of internal bleeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:13 pm
i think that with further evouloution of medical scinece, anything is possible ! * smile *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:33 am
Basically the short answer is there is only one instance where this is possible due to the nature of the pregnancy relationship.
A OB operates under the assumption that he has two(or more depending on the number of fetuses) patients who he has equal obligation to. The doctor MUST do everything he can to save both patients.
Their are some situations such as toxiema(usually not preeclamsia) in which the fetus must be immediatly removed in order to save the mother. In this case a c-section is perscribed because it is the quickest course ofaction. The child is then taken to the NICU where everything possible is done to save the woman's life.
In the case of hydrocephalous(often stated as a case where abortion is ABSOLUTLY needed) a hysterectomy is usually needed to save both mother and child. No matter what anyone tells you, a child with hydrocephalous has a relativly good chance of survival.
The only possible situation where the life of the motehr may be saved by abortion is in the case of cancer. In this case, the doctor may lose both patients if nothing is done, lose the child if treatment is done for the mother, or lose the mother if treatment is not done.
edit, sorry I forgot tubal pregnancies...I dont really consider those "abortions" in the typical sense because those poor children could never grow so I generally think of tubals in a miscarrige sense. But yes, in the case of a tubal pregnancy an abortion must be performed or both the mother and child will die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:08 am
People are telling all these stories of different moms, I'll tell what I heard from my friend about her mom. My friend's mom cannot give birth in the usual way, because some bones are on the way. (Might be a mutation, I dont know the further story to this.) And she has got 6 children by C-section. Actually, doctors dont recommend C-section to be done more than two times, but the woman couldnt abort her babies. (I'm glad she didnt, I have a wonderful friend.)
The last pregnancy came with problems. Opening and sewing up the uterus makes the tissue (obviously) weaker, and so there was a risk for the uterus to be ripped open (eww...) which meant that the baby might survive, but the mother being done for. They recommended her to have an abortion, but she didnt do it, just because she couldnt. I think she was part of some christian minority group, but I cant be sure of that. All the babies lived, and so did she, but she was sterilized, so she wouldnt get pregnant again.
Again, in this case, the doctors are painting the devils on the walls, but everything turned fine in the end. It might not have gone so well, though. Me, with my high-school biology, can tell that the risk was not of the smallest after 5 C-sections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:14 am
Doctors *need* to paint the devils on the wall.
If they didn't tell your friend's mom that having her uterus ripped open for the 6th time could potentially kill her from hemmoraging and infection because of it not healing after so many operations... and she had to have an emergency hysterectomy, or she died (probably the two biggest things that could have come from it)...
She could (rightfully) sue the hospital.
If your friend's mom died, and they didn't do everything in their power to warn her of every single risk to the full extent of their abilities, even if the risk was relatively small... say 5%, she or her family (assuming death) could sue the hospital, the doctor, and have the doctor's liscence revoked (if the board thought it that serious).
Doctors are out to save their own asses too ya know ^_^; They are negligent if they don't paint the worst case scenario (and it should happen).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:03 pm
Talon-chan Doctors *need* to paint the devils on the wall. If they didn't tell your friend's mom that having her uterus ripped open for the 6th time could potentially kill her from hemmoraging and infection because of it not healing after so many operations... and she had to have an emergency hysterectomy, or she died (probably the two biggest things that could have come from it)... She could (rightfully) sue the hospital. If your friend's mom died, and they didn't do everything in their power to warn her of every single risk to the full extent of their abilities, even if the risk was relatively small... say 5%, she or her family (assuming death) could sue the hospital, the doctor, and have the doctor's liscence revoked (if the board thought it that serious). Doctors are out to save their own asses too ya know ^_^; They are negligent if they don't paint the worst case scenario (and it should happen). Doctors should tell them the worst case scenario, but they shouldn't say, "It could potentially kill you from hemmoraging and infection," if the chance of that is low. They should say, "There's a possibility of death, but it's not very high;" After all, all surgeries, even ones so routine as tonsilectomies, carry the possibility of death. It's not natural to have your body cut open, there's always a chance of something going wrong. I think it is a ridiculous idea that they should "paint the devils on the wall" as though they are the most likely thing, when they are actually low probability. That is just trying to lead them to believe that they must do this or that or the other thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
