Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You did notice the words "APPEAR to be missing" didn't you?What you appear to be missing is the hospital making deccissions based on CYA legal advice instead of solid medical advice.
And you have absolutely no way of knowing if that's true or not.
BTW, you also have no way of knowing it's not true.
It APPEARS that it could be.
And if the doctors had induced labor when the woman first came in it would not have been suspended in a amniotic fluid deprived environment. It seems to me, not being a doctor, that their actions both before and after the birth ensured this baby's death.The baby wasn't sick. The MOTHER couldn't carry to term and the doctors according to the story based their "medical opinion" on a questionable reading of THE LAW that smacks of lawyerly Cover Your Ass BS.What is cya???
I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.
The baby was suffering from complications caused by insufficient amniotic fluid; and they are significant.
When someone says something "appears" to be a certain way they are providing their opinion as their opinion, not claiming any facts. If there were any facts involved in stating this opinion it would not "appear" to be anything, it would BE that thing. I made no claim of any fact, I stated my opinion of what MIGHT be pretty clearly. You are the one who's arguing against my stated and obvious OPINION of what MIGHT be by claiming it is NOT as if you have any FACTS to back your opinion of me being wrong. Do you always infer things that were niether stated nor implied to argue with someone about what they didn't say? Your inferences are your problem, not mine. Now if I implied such a thing were true you might have a point, but the only thing I implied is that it MIGHT be true.You did notice the words "APPEAR to be missing" didn't you?And you have absolutely no way of knowing if that's true or not.
BTW, you also have no way of knowing it's not true.
It APPEARS that it could be.
You made the claim, you get to back it up. I'm under no obligation to assume you know what you're talking about, and in fact, I don't. If you know something, please share. Otherwise, you're just presenting your opinion as fact. And while you said I *appear* to be missing it, that doesn't mean you didn't state *the hospital making deccissions (sic) based on CYA legal advice instead of solid medical advice* as a fact.
So back it up.
That would also be my impression if it were not for the stories implication that the doctors apparently refused to induce labor not for medical reasons but for legal reasons. I didn't say that... the STORY did.My impression was that her water broke, which is a symptom of labor. They banked on the hope there was enough amniotic fluid to sustain the baby. There wasn't.
This second guessing and blaming drs for everything that goes wrong is why they're running from OB/GYN. Childbirth is risky, and a crap shoot. Sometimes shit happens. It doesn't mean we need to lynch the doctors, or kill the babies.
Did they? Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.What is cya???
I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.
CYA means Cover your ass. I dont think that's what motivated the Doctors though. I honestly believe they wanted the kid to survive. It is a messed up deal.
allie, you are evil, evil, evil.....you need to tame your, lying, evil tongue....you may think you are crafty with your words, but you are possessed by evil!So why would it be better to bring about the death of the child instead of allowing nature to do its thing?
ask the mother to be....she's the one that said it caused her more grief...read the article in the op.
and nature would have done its thing, induced or not induced....it still would have been nature to take this girl's life.
I'm not asking the mother, I'm asking you, since you are a proponent of killing babies before their time and the person who is participating in the convo.
So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?
What you state here is likely the truth, but that is not a reason not to ask the questions to the contrary given the fact that the doctors apparently refused to induce labor for questionable legal reasons according to the story.Did they? Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.CYA means Cover your ass. I dont think that's what motivated the Doctors though. I honestly believe they wanted the kid to survive. It is a messed up deal.
That was my initial thought as well, but when I read further into the story, I came to the conclusion that they realized that this baby was not meant to survive. I am hopeful that the reasons for not rushing Elizabeth to NICU was to give the parents closure and the realization that there was simply nothing the medical staff on hand (or anyone for that matter) could do for Elizabeth. Ultimately, it is only the parents, the medical staff and the Lord who know what happened here.
I pray that Mrs Deaver will find peace and joy in the 15 minutes that she spent with her daughter. The pain of this will never leave her. She will always remember the little girl she held in her hands for just a few minutes. May she learn to cherish those moments in her life.
Immie
Was there a link I missed besides the OP? Because the story linked in the OP did not mention this. Aren't lungs developed enough to survive by the 23rd week? It would seem to me they must be since with proper medical care babies have been born and survived in the 21st week. how did she live for 15 minutes without lungs?Did they? Then why didn't they rush the kid to the ICU for the best medical care it could be provided? Other children have survived birth with proper medical care at less than even the 23 weeks this baby got.CYA means Cover your ass. I dont think that's what motivated the Doctors though. I honestly believe they wanted the kid to survive. It is a messed up deal.
This child had no lungs. The poor girl was doomed. Her lungs were so undeveloped that a respirator would have done her no good. She was not meant for this world and any action short of direct intervention by God would have been an act in futility. The article explains it. It is just a sad story. And sadly, just the way things are. We live and we die.
When someone says something "appears" to be a certain way they are providing their opinion as their opinion, not claiming any facts. If there were any facts involved in stating this opinion it would not "appear" to be anything, it would BE that thing. I made no claim of any fact, I stated my opinion of what MIGHT be pretty clearly. You are the one who's arguing against my stated and obvious OPINION of what MIGHT be by claiming it is NOT as if you have any FACTS to back your opinion of me being wrong. Do you always infer things that were niether stated nor implied to argue with someone about what they didn't say? Your inferences are your problem, not mine. Now if I implied such a thing were true you might have a point, but the only thing I implied is that it MIGHT be true.You did notice the words "APPEAR to be missing" didn't you?
BTW, you also have no way of knowing it's not true.
It APPEARS that it could be.
You made the claim, you get to back it up. I'm under no obligation to assume you know what you're talking about, and in fact, I don't. If you know something, please share. Otherwise, you're just presenting your opinion as fact. And while you said I *appear* to be missing it, that doesn't mean you didn't state *the hospital making deccissions (sic) based on CYA legal advice instead of solid medical advice* as a fact.
So back it up.
BTW, I also editted the post to make sure it can't be misunderstood again and I admit that before the edit the inference was possible.
allie, you are evil, evil, evil.....you need to tame your, lying, evil tongue....you may think you are crafty with your words, but you are possessed by evil!ask the mother to be....she's the one that said it caused her more grief...read the article in the op.
and nature would have done its thing, induced or not induced....it still would have been nature to take this girl's life.
I'm not asking the mother, I'm asking you, since you are a proponent of killing babies before their time and the person who is participating in the convo.
So are you saying a mother's desires dictate all? Even if it's not a medically sound desire?
I am not a proponent of killing babies before their time....i have stated such, a thousand times over....
your head is messed up....lay off the bottle of alcohol...it's not good for you.
Sincerely,
Care
Yes, I realized it could be misunderstood that way... which is why I editted it. Did the statement that the inference was possible before the edit not register that fact?When someone says something "appears" to be a certain way they are providing their opinion as their opinion, not claiming any facts. If there were any facts involved in stating this opinion it would not "appear" to be anything, it would BE that thing. I made no claim of any fact, I stated my opinion of what MIGHT be pretty clearly. You are the one who's arguing against my stated and obvious OPINION of what MIGHT be by claiming it is NOT as if you have any FACTS to back your opinion of me being wrong. Do you always infer things that were niether stated nor implied to argue with someone about what they didn't say? Your inferences are your problem, not mine. Now if I implied such a thing were true you might have a point, but the only thing I implied is that it MIGHT be true.You made the claim, you get to back it up. I'm under no obligation to assume you know what you're talking about, and in fact, I don't. If you know something, please share. Otherwise, you're just presenting your opinion as fact. And while you said I *appear* to be missing it, that doesn't mean you didn't state *the hospital making deccissions (sic) based on CYA legal advice instead of solid medical advice* as a fact.
So back it up.
BTW, I also editted the post to make sure it can't be misunderstood again and I admit that before the edit the inference was possible.
Edit is your friend.
The way it was written you were stating an opinion of my understanding of a fact. Except the fact isn't an established fact.
Why wasn't this LIVING baby given life saving medical treatment? Why was she not rushed to the ICU and given the best medical care possible? Why was she allowed to just die without medical care? Other children have survived being born at 21 weeks when given proper medical care. This baby SURVIVED the birth and dies later having been denied medical care.What the hell is a non-viable fetus? Because my understanding was that the baby had a small percentage of a chance to survive, and that it did indeed survive as a fetus, but then died after birth. The baby had complications from not having enough amniotic fluid.
It was sick. There's no justification in killing children who are sick, and if we're talking about the well being of the mother, her medical needs were best met by allowing nature to take its course.
So I guess the argument that abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother doesn't apply here. In this case, no risk is too great...so long as the baby dies before it takes its first breath.
And that still wouldn't have happened. If the doctors had induced labor, Danielle would have had the baby just like she did, then held her until she died, just like she did anyway. These people have their panties in a wad because the exact same thing that happened didn't happen seven days earlier, that it happened naturally instead of through deliberate intent. That's their whole frothing outrage: that Elizabeth died on her own, instead of being killed.
Don't you get the feeling that lots of information is deliberately left out of the story in order to make a political point? They can operate on babies in the womb these days. Why would doctors refuse to correct an abnormality that they say would cause a baby to die 15 minutes after birth? What abnormality? What about a C-section?
Exactly. I have a cousin who was probably going to die after being born. She had SEVERAL problems. Her Diaphram didn't devlop right and all of her intestines were up in her chest cavity, causing her lungs to under develop. They didn't expect her to make it after being born. BUT, they did surgery in the womb to help her after birth. Then she had several surgeries as soon as she was able. She will likely have more, but she survived!
Edit that statement and get back to me when you can communicate effectively.Yes, I realized it could be misunderstood that way... which is why I editted it. Did the statement that the inference was possible before the edit not register that fact?When someone says something "appears" to be a certain way they are providing their opinion as their opinion, not claiming any facts. If there were any facts involved in stating this opinion it would not "appear" to be anything, it would BE that thing. I made no claim of any fact, I stated my opinion of what MIGHT be pretty clearly. You are the one who's arguing against my stated and obvious OPINION of what MIGHT be by claiming it is NOT as if you have any FACTS to back your opinion of me being wrong. Do you always infer things that were niether stated nor implied to argue with someone about what they didn't say? Your inferences are your problem, not mine. Now if I implied such a thing were true you might have a point, but the only thing I implied is that it MIGHT be true.
BTW, I also editted the post to make sure it can't be misunderstood again and I admit that before the edit the inference was possible.
Edit is your friend.
The way it was written you were stating an opinion of my understanding of a fact. Except the fact isn't an established fact.
That's a good example. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to the situation at hand, but does indirectly answer the question: the differences between necessity and warranted is determined by the the risk and damages. Also keep in mind the "HAVE to have an abortion" is in reference to it's availability, not the procedure itself. If any medical procedure is WARRANTED because of direct health risks, be it loss of life, limb, or quality of life, that procedure ought to be available to the patient. Clearly a procedure that is completely elective does not apply to this. Somewhere in between lies a line in the sand.What's the difference between HAVE to have an abortion, and it being warranted?
Let's use an example within the medical framework. A breast augmentation is WARRANTED any time a patient decides they want one done. But there is no requirement under the law or good faith and conscious that such a procedure be necessarily available to a woman. However, it becomes NECESSARY when a woman has breast cancer and other treatments are ineffective.
Internet people always are. Cecilie saw two people with lung problems and she's an expert pulmonologist. Let me guess, you've seen a parent in the hospital? No no wait I got it: your sister dropped out of nursing school.Don't try to tell me how the health care world operates because I am in a better position to know than you.
You did in fact identify a starting problem, that her hopes and plans fell apart, but in doing so completely dismissed the ethical issue at hand: WHAT TO DO AT THAT TIME. That is the topic on the table: not the start of the problem but how to react. I insist the woman would have benefit from whatever her decision was because it was her decision. I insist that allowing for abortion would have benefited the baby if the patient desired it. I also insist that ignoring the patient's desires and removing the possibility of abortion in this case was of benefit to NO ONE. Again I ask which you have avoided countless times: who benefited from the current law in this situation? What justice or good did it serve?No, it's not clear from anyone. You insist that the woman would have benefited from an abortion, but your insistence is unsubstantiated and based on nothing more than your own biases. The real problem for this woman is not that she had to carry the fetus a few more days. It's the fact that she was ready to become a mother, and at the last minute her hopes and plans fell apart.Certainly that would apply if the conception was a risk to her life, but it's clear to most people in this thread, as well as the doctors caring for her, that availability of abortion would have been a benefit to all involved.
You keep saying things like this, yet I can't help but notice you never actually back it up. Let's look at your knowledgeable view on the health care industry. You claim it is not in the business of killing people just because they are suffering. Let's just ignore Oregon for a moment, which COMPLETELY destroys that claim, and instead look at the anticipated suffering itself. Healthcare in every way seeks to diminish suffering. The entire field of anesthesiology is claim to that. In end of life issues, this can also be seen in the double effect.This argument has no merit, and if you knew anything about the health care field you would already know that. If you are going to invoke the suffering of the fetus as any kind of justification, then you logically must deal with the fetus on equal terms as any living and breathing human being, just like you and myself. The health care industry is not in the business of killing off people just because they are suffering. It would be a violation of medical ethics.You seem to be repeatedly overlooking the fact that the baby suffered for the entirety of its limited existence.
What do you think is the point of law or justice if not the striving to seek fairness and increase overall benefit to society? Why would you EVER support a law that is to the detriment of EVERYONE affected by it? I can't seem to think of any right now, but can you point out a law that is bad for everyone involved? "Sometimes shit happens" is not an appropriate response to a law. I agree that laws should not be written for rarities, but EXCEPTIONS to the law should be. This is tax season, and this statement should be obvious. If we took your stance of no exceptions for rarities, abortion wouldn't even be possible if the mother's life was in danger. Ridiculous.Who said that anyone had to benefit for the law to be just? Sometimes shit happens and there are no winners. But as has already been said by someone else, the law should not be written based on special rarities. The fact that this woman found herself in a very unusual and unpleasant circumstance does not make the law unjust. At the end of the day, the law did not require her to die or endure any risk to her well being. The only thing she has suffered is the very traumatic loss of her newborn baby. And as much as my heart goes out to this woman, the law is not to blame.
It's about both. It's about the suffering of her child as well. Sure, let's remove her anguish or even the physical impact of carrying a non-viable fetus in a compressing uterus. Those are two of the three points I have continued to bring up. Take them off the table completely, and the third still remains: it was human inaction that directly allowed for a known and anticipated suffering of a baby until it died from asphyxiation. Why should we have laws that permit such things? If it were a terminal adult, a multitude of actions would have been taken to reduce the suffering, even at the cost of hastening death, so why is it fine in this situation?In terms of identifying whether it is a just law, unfortunately yes, her mental anguish is pretty much irrelevant. The world is not perfect. Sometimes people have very disturbing experiences. But you're really doing a discourtesy to this woman by trying to wallow in her suffering, as opposed to having a more positive attitude. As painful as this is for this woman, she CAN go on. She may need to seek some professional help to help her cope with the loss of her child. But the truth of the matter is that what has happened to this woman is NOT ABOUT THE DAMN LAW. It is about the tragic loss of her child.
Clearly not, if you are unfamiliar with the double effect or the purpose of anesthesiology. Wait let me guess, your familiarity with health care comes from your second cousin once removed being a dentist. Am I getting closer?I haven't ignored anything. ... (maybe here I kinda ignored that point at first, but that's because I have an understanding of how health care works,
Wow. Just wow. Maybe we should have given the bourbon to the baby instead, by your reasoning. You are clearly a clearly a health care and mental health expert.A late term abortive procedure would have been about as much benefit to her as giving her a bottle of bourbon.
What you appear to be missing is the hospital possibly making deccissions based on CYA legal advice instead of solid medical advice.I've been kinda curious about something for a while now concerning this. Nebraska's abortion law has an exception on the time limit for danger to the mother's life or health, right? So one presumes that if the doctors refused to induce labor, it was because they felt there was no significant risk to the mother's life or health in waiting for the miscarriage to restart and proceed on its own.
My question is, why? Why didn't they feel that leaving the baby in the uterus for a week with - what was it? Only 15% of the amniotic fluid left? - was a danger to the mother? One of the more common usages of labor inducement appears to be the mother's water breaking, and then the labor stalling out, and it's because without the amniotic fluid, there's significant risk of infection and uterine damage. So why wasn't this a concern in this case?
What am I missing here?
(editted for clarity)
What is cya???
I would bet money that the dr. made the choice based upon the risk to the mother, and then backed it up with the hospital legal team. Because I know for a fact that inducing labor early poses a risk to the mother. I've never heard of a dr. inducing labor just to get rid of a sick baby, unless it increases the chances of survival for the baby, because it poses a risk to the mother. If they believe it will happen naturally, they will go that route because it's a better option, medically, for the mother.
And if the doctors had induced labor when the woman first came in it would not have been suspended in a amniotic fluid deprived environment. It seems to me, not being a doctor, that their actions both before and after the birth ensured this baby's death.The baby wasn't sick. The MOTHER couldn't carry to term and the doctors according to the story based their "medical opinion" on a questionable reading of THE LAW that smacks of lawyerly Cover Your Ass BS.
The baby was suffering from complications caused by insufficient amniotic fluid; and they are significant.
