|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:51 am
I think the thing is, cancer treatment for your child doesn't put you at physical risk. A C-section does. If I was going to put myself at risk for my child when I had a bunch of other children to take care of, I'd want to be pretty sure that a C-section was really best for my child, and not just what the doctors here think. She went to a different hospital to give birth and they didn't do the C-section, so I think the need for the c-section wasn't as much a need as the first doctors thought it was. It would've been different had the baby died, yes, but the baby didn't die and the other hospital didn't find a need for the c-section to be done to prevent death.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:46 am
It's a dificult case because there is a fine line between neglect on the parents side and negligence on the doctors side and it's hard to say who's right.
Some doctors are too quick to perform c-sections to the point of possibly harming the woman but some parents are unreasonably opposed to them, to the point of possibly harming the child.
This case was lucky because both survived, but I would consider it an offense if the child died a preventable death because of a mother not wanting surgery.
It would be equally offensive if the mother died after an uneccesary surgery. Because the mother sought a second opinion who agreed with her I wouldnt think she would be liable for the death(had one occured) however, had she just gone home and said "well, tough I know better" I think she would have some legal responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:03 pm
The problem I have is that these aren't problems of fetal rights themselves. They're problems of not balancing fetal rights with the mother's rights. A doctor has an obligation to both patients, not one or the other.
This woman is saying, giving a fetus rights will cause mothers to lose theirs.
That makes no sense to me. Her objection to South Dakota's task force is that they'll overlook the rights of pregnant women.
A very valid concern. She's right. They make no accomodations for pregnant women, they just say, "No more abortions." Nothing to protect them from being fired, nothing to protect them financially, no maternity leave required. They've put the cart before the horse and made abortion illegal WITHOUT making the accomodations that would make women feel less need to abort.
But that should be a concern, not an objection. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
