I DO KNOW ia what I'm suggesting offer the possibilities of fixing those problems and establishing a system that addresses the difficulties you talk about. The doctors and HC professionals should not have to risk their freedom, license or living performing the procedures that have been included in the laws.
Then the laws will be unenforceable- which is why you have seen so many different legislative attempt to make them enforceable
Again - where do you draw the line? Eg Sepsis it is not a yes/no issue live/die. So when should we intervene? When the woman shows first signs? Wait until she develops “severe sepsis” (at that point the BP crashes and they may have to be admitted to ICU. Or do we wait until we see “Septic shock” by which time she will be in multi system organ failure and possibly end, if she survives as a quad amputee. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/16/9274 But as you can see even Septic Shock has “only” a 50% mortality so is that “sick enough”?
It works here. Every state has its own constitution and laws; I have no idea how Australia works. Getting down into the medical specifics is a combination of federal and states.
I have no idea how you think this fits into the discussion. You're asking question state medical authorities address.
If the woman has sepsis there is NO TIME to take it to “state medical authorities” This is why women are dying NOW. This is why all of these laws will be challenged in court eventually and eventually they will end where Englands legislation ended - paper only and unenforceable
Don't play that game, Bowerbird. We've gone there before. You progressives always want to cherry-pick countries with your definition of "developed". (I think most all of that difference can be explained by the fact that the U.S. has a much higher black and brown minority population and has more people living in semi-rural areas than any of the countries that would be on your list) And let me guess, India, South Africa, Mexico, and Brazil wouldn't make it your list of "developed" countries, would they?
They won't have to. The law will stipulate the treatments allowed. The allowed procedures will be written into law in advance. That's the point. No debates, no danger to the MD for do the procedure or administering the meds, or whatever.
Here's another case where a woman from Ireland travelled to London to get an abortion and ended up dying from the procedure. Investigation after woman died 'hours after' abortion 22 July 2013 A police investigation is under way after a woman from Dublin died hours after having an abortion in London. The 32-year-old, who was a foreign national living in Ireland, underwent an abortion at a Marie Stopes clinic in January 2012. She died in a taxi hours after the procedure. Marie Stopes International declined to comment. The woman's husband told The Irish Times that his wife had sought an abortion at a maternity hospital in Dublin but had been told that it was not legally possible to provide one. The woman [previously] had a child in Ireland in 2010. Her pregnancy was painful and complicated by extensive fibroids [...] "We were worried about what would happen when she became pregnant again," he said. "She was sick, but we were told that nothing could be done in Ireland." It is understood the woman was about 20 weeks pregnant when she travelled to Britain for an abortion. Investigation after woman died 'hours after' abortion - BBC News So there are "two sides to the coin", if you want to play the game of anecdotal stories. (By the way, some people would probably say she deserved to die, trying to abort at 20 weeks with a normal baby)
and we have a very bloody vulnerable indigenous population spread out in small communities across NT and WA -look at a map that is half the country. What we DO have is RFDS, strong medical infrastructure, evidence based guidelines and a free health care system. Try reading the links
Lols! Oh! Lols! You wish. Show me ONE law that “stipulates the treatments allowed”. Have you ANY and I mean ANY freaking idea just how complex this is? There is reason why OBGYN is a specialty and no longer relies on the good old country doctor to deliver babies. Maternity ICU is a specialty field in and of itself
One out of how many? People have died from tight shirt collars. Plus if she had such a complicated pregnancy death may have been inevitable - I used the “anecdote” of Savita to tell the tale of why Ireland changes its laws not as a case study.
You're just not grasping the point. How can I show you a law that still needs to be written? Of course it's complex and detailed but with laws like those providers will know what they can and cannot do. Your point early on was Dr's were afraid to administer certain cures the MIGHT be in trouble - if the law WAS IN PLACE they wouldn't have that problem.
It is complex. But that's no reason to hand over the baby and say "Here, have at it!" You seem to think any woman should be legally permitted to abort late into the pregnancy if it could be said the slightest reason exists why that might provide any medical benefit.
But have hugely higher risk of peri and post natal complications due to living in remote communities, poor underpinning health, substance abuse (alcohol) poor prenatal care etc etc etc. When I am talking remote we are talking 2 - 4 hours when peripartum haemorrhage can cause bleeding of up to 500mls a minute. With an average of 5ltres blood - work out how long that is before you have a dead mother https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/706589/c-pph-severebleeding.pdf
But maybe, just maybe we should be leaving the decision making to those doctors? Your second question is WTF
Once again, places like TN have few OB/GYNs. The number at risk is more than just the number that need (or want) an abortion. Also, I don't always accept the idea that if a new law only kills a few, then so what.
It would be leaving the decision making to doctors. You just have a problem when others want to take that and turn it around, applying it against the woman. You want to make it so if any doctor agrees, the woman can abort the fetus. But why not then make so that if any doctor agrees, the woman can be punished? Do you have double standards?
Yeah this attitude blows me away. “All life is precious” except when it is a grown woman and you are about to lose both lives then it is “but we saved some others”! Really? Really? That is your excuse? Oh! And while you are slut shaming women requiring abortions why are you not ensuring that proper contraceptives are available? Why are you not putting in place more support for after birth, you know when it is actually a baby?
Because a)the vast majority of women having abortions are doing so out of necessity - may not be a necessity you agree with but…. And b) why punish the woman? I can guarantee if you did punish her it would force abortion underground and you would end up with a series of nightmares like Dr Gosnell across the nation
