|
Post by jemand on Jun 17, 2010 21:08:44 GMT -5
By the way, what do you think people like me should do if we get pregnant, consensually or otherwise? I have a septate uterus and a flattened, malformed cervix that could not hold for the duration of a pregnancy. Without some very expensive surgeries, a pregnancy for me would be quite life-threatening. I don't believe that it would be morally right for me to attempt to carry a child to term when there are other options should I decide to raise a child. The expenses are more than I can handle, and I am not interested in having multiple surgeries in order to increase the possibility of bringing a child to term with both of us intact. FWIW, I NOW have difficulty in upholding principle over lives. As I stated elsewhere, principles are to serve us, not the other way around. My thoughts on your situation: I would support whatever you decided to do. The link to the philosophical essay on abortion that was posted on another thread has caused me to do a lot of thinking about the difficult situations where it appears you have, through no fault of their own, one life pitted against another. It is easy to be rigid in one's views and black and white because then you don't have to think. Just apply principle A to situation B and damn the torpedos! It's things like this that make me thankful for God's mercy that would cover even a situation where there is no clearly defined answer about what to do. I don't think it would be sinful either way, and if you opted for carrying a baby as far as you could, I would think you a heroine in the face of some very big odds! The thing is... There are exceptions everywhere, aren't there? When you start upholding a doctor/border-guard's right to lie to you about the facts, you get into some very slippery moral territory that very quickly puts a lot of people at risk. Unfortunately, ethics are never as cut and dried as we would like them. I'm thinking of the case of Rahab in the OT who lied in order to protect the Israelite spies and then was rewarded by God for it. In fact, the whole profession of spying raises some interesting ethical questions because it is based on deceit. A couple quote tag fixes (that actually took more than I thought lol. Complexity!)
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 17, 2010 23:51:34 GMT -5
Thanks, Jemand! I'm new to boards and am hopeless with tags, etc. Apologies to everyone for the mess I sometimes make.
Cheryl
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 17, 2010 23:53:05 GMT -5
I actually do believe there are very few doctors or nurses who would stand by and let a patient die because of an ectopic pregnancy. On the other hand, there are full and plenty pharmacists and pharmacy workers who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, refuse to unlock cases so people they don't approve of using condoms can buy them, or otherwise refuse to do their job when it involves other people's sexuality.
Oh, and I had a friend who got an abortion at a nonreligious hospital, but someone from her boyfriend's mom's church handled her records and outed her to the congregation. That's illegal, but it doesn't stop people.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Jun 18, 2010 0:15:18 GMT -5
I know it was mentioned earlier, but I just wanted to point out again that Oklahoma passed (or is thinking about passing) a law that allows a doctor to lie to a pregnant woman about the health of her fetus if he thinks the truth will cause her to have an abortion.
Now, the most straight-forward usage of this law would be for doctors to lie to a woman whose fetus has some sort of defect- whether it's something that's manageable (Down's Syndrome) or fatal (many defects kill the newborn shortly after birth) To me, that a doctor is allowed to even do that is horrific.
However, since many extremist "pro-lifers" twist laws to fit into their morality, I'm wondering how far that law could be taken. Since there are doctors out there who will not perform an abortion under any circumstances, even when the life of the mother is at stake, what would stop Oklahoma doctors from refraining from even telling a woman she has an ectopic pregnancy? I wonder, if a woman died of an ectopic pregnancy that her doctor never told her she had, would her family be able to go after that doctor, or would he be protected under the new law?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 18, 2010 8:50:43 GMT -5
I actually do believe there are very few doctors or nurses who would stand by and let a patient die because of an ectopic pregnancy. That may be true... however personally it's about as comforting as saying there are only a very few serial killers-- if serial killers couldn't even be fired from their jobs in gun shops. But even then, I wonder why the law even says what it does, if nobody wants to use it to the fullest extent. Laws are written very carefully-- social movements work very carefully, there are extremely religious people who purposefully go into pharmacy and health care work *in order to* reduce access to abortion and birth control under the protection of these laws. Sure, many of even them might not go as far as they are allowed to... but certainly some will. And... there are gradations in this situation. Extremely few may do absolutely nothing for a patient with an ectopic pregnancy, but I do think many would probably wait much longer than necessary watching it progress, and then have to do a much later and more emergency operation with a much greater chance of death and permanent morbidity. Or wait until operations are much more dangerous and have to stop interventions due to the instability of the patient. This kind of behavior is going to be much less obvious, especially if the doctor isn't fully honest with the patient and her family about the situation and her options. However, the doctor would eventually do *something* and even if many more deaths result from his kind of care, no one family will be able to notice that as easily.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 18, 2010 9:44:15 GMT -5
Unfortunately, ethics are never as cut and dried as we would like them. I'm thinking of the case of Rahab in the OT who lied in order to protect the Israelite spies and then was rewarded by God for it. In fact, the whole profession of spying raises some interesting ethical questions because it is based on deceit. Basically. I'm thinking of Kant's "murderer at the door" scenario in which Kant argues that it is morally indefensible to lie to a "murderer at the door" who seeks to kill an innocent friend who is hiding in your home. According to Kant, you are morally obligated to tell the murderer where your friend hides. He never really acknowledges the morally indefensible nature of delivering your friend over to a violent and premature death. I tend to come down on the side of universal laws of all kinds being morally repulsive in many situations--and more or less useless as such. I don't think morality can be practiced except in specific contexts.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 18, 2010 10:19:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 12:32:20 GMT -5
If any of my psych major friends are reading, I put up a post on my blog about means, medians, and modes. I'm aiming at showing that ectopic birth rates meet the null hypothesis because I can't even get any meaningful data to plug into a chi square or a t-test. My value of p has to be 1.0 plus! Phillips apparently released the scheduled topics and events for the Baby Conference... My husband and I laughed and laughed when I read them to him! (I've definitely needed the comic relief after the week of sifting through depressing statistics and such.) One of the break out events is called "Suffer the Children." Though it is awful, it is so bad that it's funny. The "Suffer the Children" thing is about caring for the sick! Who would want these guys rendering care and making your decisions for you? What in heavens name qualifies them to teach people this stuff? I said that we should write a spoof of the list, and my husband says that we don't even have to do one. In the context of the other stupid and cruel exclusivistic, authoritarian, and miserable things that they say about people, it is a spoof.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 12:42:23 GMT -5
www.visionforum.org/resources/library/events/bc/lecture-topics.htmlHere's another codependent ditty from the topic list: First We Were Wives, Then We Became Mothers
Eve’s first mission was to complete Adam, then to bear children. . . .
....If that's not rife with ontological issues.... AND The Glory of the Fruitful Womb
The world glories in designer bodies, luxury lifestyles and the “freedom” of the barren womb. But the Bible pictures such sentiments, not as "glory" but as judgment. Instead, Children are presented in the Scripture as a glory, and those mothers who lay down their lives to bring them into the world as uniquely blessed. . . .
...............Oh yeah. We know VF's definition of what "uniquely blessed" can mean. It means blessed with death. "lay down their lives" is not figurative. But people who have not been brutalized by this stuff will read it and never suspect anything because it sounds lovely and virtuous. Gag.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 12:46:51 GMT -5
One more item...
I've been on the phone with National Right to Life and of the many topics I discussed, I also asked for an official and formal statement from NRTL about their relationship to the state level organizations, private convictions of individuals who are affiliated with a state-level group, and for the NRTL position on ectopic pregnancy.
I hope to hear something by Monday.
If they don't give me a response in a fairly timely manner, maybe we can bug them. But the individual with whom I've addressed this matter before seemed motivated to help.
|
|
|
Post by chbernat on Jun 18, 2010 13:30:54 GMT -5
You wouldn't be human if you didn't make an error! I have loved your story series and the update on the suspicious live birth rate for tubal pregnancies is further cause for alarm. I would really like to know why more Christian organizations, such as Focus on the Family or Family Life Today aren't reporting on this. SOMEONE has had to have seen NLQ's story series by now. This would be a case where one could say that because they are too afraid to offend and speak out against such radical fundamentalist groups that God will certainly hold them accountable for these actions. "For true religion is this: to care for the orphans and widows in their distress." Thank you Vyckie and Cindy!!! Your reward in heaven is great. Hugs and blessings to you both!
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 15:18:23 GMT -5
You wouldn't be human if you didn't make an error! I have loved your story series and the update on the suspicious live birth rate for tubal pregnancies is further cause for alarm. I would really like to know why more Christian organizations, such as Focus on the Family or Family Life Today aren't reporting on this. SOMEONE has had to have seen NLQ's story series by now. This would be a case where one could say that because they are too afraid to offend and speak out against such radical fundamentalist groups that God will certainly hold them accountable for these actions. "For true religion is this: to care for the orphans and widows in their distress." Thank you Vyckie and Cindy!!! Your reward in heaven is great. Hugs and blessings to you both! What a lovely and gracious thing to say, chbernat. At this point, I'm happy to be a door keeper and barely get in the door. Glory to God for the rest. I'm a glorious mess with the glory belonging to Him and the mess belonging to me. I just had to come and post this... On Doug's Blog at VF, they listed more speakers. Samaritan Ministries is actually participating in the conference, and I guess that SM will be sharing its special kind of ethics with the people who pay to attend. From the site: James Lansberry is vice president of Samaritan Ministries — a creative alternative to health care, and a needs-based sharing ministry. He is a frequent radio guest speaker, and a speaker at churches, colleges, and conferences. He and his wife, Theresa, have been married fourteen years and are the parents of seven children.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jun 18, 2010 16:29:20 GMT -5
Jemand, i completely agree with what you say - but I think the legislation may just be there for legislators to show off, not to actually be used, in most cases. I think the real problem is that creeping foot-dragging, which is the natural result of all the anti-abortion propaganda we've been steeped in. That kind of devaluing of a pregnant woman's life in the mind of doctors and other caregivers is really disturbing, and doesn't require any kind of legal or policy changes to have a negative effect.
Cindy, I'm sure it's not what they meant, but advertising Samaritan as an alternative to health care, instead of an alternative to health insurance, is bleakly hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on Jun 18, 2010 16:32:04 GMT -5
Jeez... what slackers. That's only a kid every two years!
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 18:40:13 GMT -5
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 18, 2010 19:47:33 GMT -5
I read your post, I have a question. I interpret the 1 in 60 million as meaning I and sixty million others bought lottery tickets. We all want the 100 million dollar prize, in this case a live baby that feveloped somewhere other than in the uterine fundus and did so without killing or injuring the mom.
Is that the right interpretation...
Further, this is a Shelly Jackson lottery, some are going to loose their lives, others may be permanently disabled and some may escape with just impaired fertility or no fertility... How many of each of these prizes exist?
I use the term prize very sarcastically except in the case of the true jackpot.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 20:15:42 GMT -5
I read your post, I have a question. I interpret the 1 in 60 million as meaning I and sixty million others bought lottery tickets. We all want the 100 million dollar prize, in this case a live baby that feveloped somewhere other than in the uterine fundus and did so without killing or injuring the mom. Is that the right interpretation... Further, this is a Shelly Jackson lottery, some are going to loose their lives, others may be permanently disabled and some may escape with just impaired fertility or no fertility... How many of each of these prizes exist? I use the term prize very sarcastically except in the case of the true jackpot. No. Not at all. The fact that you (or whoever) falls in with a million others is just a statement of fact. Producing a live birth is not a lottery -- that was more my point. The fact that there is one person in a million with something or other (I'm happier with the underestimate of one in 60 million, but not really), can be descriptive only, and all one can really say truthfully is that such births are so rare, they exist. If you are the only case in ten years, that is a true statement. "One in a million" is okay as an expression of speech (like "I could sleep for a week"), but it is not a statement of probability. If want to know the odds of a live birth... The probability in terms of statistics is ZERO because such births are entirely unpredicable and rare. They are so few, we can't even make any kind of statement about probability (as determined by statistics). If you have an ectopic pregnancy that is non-tubal and you are hoping to carry that baby until the little one can be rescued, too, the probability of the baby surviving (in terms of probability which is bounced off of the whole) is still ZERO. That doctor did not give a probability statement. He was stating his best "guestimate" of how big the group of babies was. The trick is not interpreting that as odds of 1 in one million. The actual "odds" for that happening are zero in terms of the rules governing the calculation of probability. Chance happenings and miracles have a probability of zero. No one wins in that lottery. As an individual, your doctor can't even give you any kinds of odds about your chances of surviving based on the population. The only thing they could rely upon would be your assessment findings, moment by moment. Your individual case and your status are the only predictors of survival. They do not fit in to or apply to the group.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 20:23:53 GMT -5
I read your post, I have a question. I interpret the 1 in 60 million as meaning I and sixty million others bought lottery tickets. We all want the 100 million dollar prize, in this case a live baby that feveloped somewhere other than in the uterine fundus and did so without killing or injuring the mom. Is that the right interpretation... Further, this is a Shelly Jackson lottery, some are going to loose their lives, others may be permanently disabled and some may escape with just impaired fertility or no fertility... How many of each of these prizes exist? I use the term prize very sarcastically except in the case of the true jackpot. Another thought -- if you buy a lottery ticket, there are rules and boards and such. You can follow up and find out who won, etc. There was a structure and a contract. For this situation, you can actually calculate odds. We know someone will will. The system is static. If we wanted, we could also look at other lottery systems for some comparison. That is not the case with ectopic pregnancy. It is one of those messy human things that is dynamic. We break all the rules and then break the rules about rule breaking in terms of variance. There is no set system and the parameters are fluid.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 20:32:56 GMT -5
Another tricky point...
If you are going to examine infertility, you have to clean the slate and look at morbidity related to all deliveries and not the curve for live births. (Apples and oranges -- or maybe eggs instead of oranges?) You have to set up a whole different analysis and then account for a whole different set of variables related to infertility or morbidity or how they relate to one another.
That's why if you are going to discuss safety in ectopic pregnancy, it is more advantageous and efficacious to examine what we know -- we have lots of deaths, plenty of cases of morbidity, and the data about them.
But there again, we have far more examples and a solid population of people who we can draw from because it does happen. We don't have anything remotely like this luxury when it comes to live births from ectopic pregnancy. I can't even get meaningful numbers upon which to speculate. I can only find single miracle case reports.
Oh man. I'm starting to sound like an obtuse geek.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 18, 2010 21:02:56 GMT -5
See I'm having a problem understanding where you're coming from.
If a woman presents in an ER with an acute abdomen and a positive HCG a secular hospital & OB will decide what to do next based on the location of the ectopic and how advanced it is. The priorities might vary a little depending on the woman but her overall well being is the focus of the treatment.
This would change in a radically pro life institution where the survivability of the embryo seems to trump the mother's survivability.
What I'm looking for is a statistical picture of how dangerous this is to the woman.
How else to get across the idea that a bad outcome is so much more likely than a happy ending?
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 22:22:44 GMT -5
See I'm having a problem understanding where you're coming from. If a woman presents in an ER with an acute abdomen and a positive HCG a secular hospital & OB will decide what to do next based on the location of the ectopic and how advanced it is. The priorities might vary a little depending on the woman but her overall well being is the focus of the treatment. This would change in a radically pro life institution where the survivability of the embryo seems to trump the mother's survivability. What I'm looking for is a statistical picture of how dangerous this is to the woman. How else to get across the idea that a bad outcome is so much more likely than a happy ending? These are all great demonstrations of how Vision Forum muddies the waters. You're asking great questions that point this out and how principle applies to reality. If you look back in the post I wrote, statistics are just a tool that can be used to help us with discernment. It does not replace discernment. That is the first problem with the Vision Forum: People are subjugated to the rules that are meant to help them. The rules become more important than the people. Live births are apples and maternal deaths are oranges. They are two different factors. One of the places that VF goes wrong concerns the mixing of these two outcomes to confuse the issue for people. In the Samaritan Ministries newsletter, they quote several references that go on and on about the death rate, but VF ignored that data to dig for needles in haystacks, about some of which, it appears that they either really fouled up or outright lied. What I'm looking for is a statistical picture of how dangerous this is to the woman.[/i
I've already presented those statistics several times. Ectopic pregnancy accounts 6-9% of all pregnancy related deaths, and even though ectopic pregnancy incidence has risen dramatically since 1970 (I think one stat I read was that it went up four fold), but death rates dropped.
One of the first links on the CDC website you'll find is a Surveillance Study (data that is 20 years old) which states: The case-fatality rate declined from 35.5 deaths per 10,000 ectopic pregnancies in 1970 to 3.8 in 1989. wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0031632/m0031632.asp
These statistics all demonstrate that surgery saves the lives of women and even despite the dramatic rise in survival rates (dropped ten fold improvement in our treatment) even though the cases have risen (increased four fold at least), 6-9% of all women who die while pregnant die because of ectopic pregnancy.
That's why I keep repeating that it is inappropriate to talk about chance miracle babies where one might be born every decade on the whole earth if the issue is what to do about ectopic pregnancy. The ethical thing to do do a better job at saving more of those 6-9% of women who are dying from ectopic pregnancy. It is inappropriate to talk about wishful thinking if an estimated 25,000 pregnant women died in 2008 because of ectopic pregnancy. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm You have to look at the real risk to women, and there is plenty of data in the morbidity statistics alone to build a case for the dangers to women.
If you read any medical info page on ectopic pregnancy and articles that discuss treatment, very few even mention that live births can result. These articles are focused on treating and saving the mother. One general article about ectopic pregnancy that I found that did mention live births got creamed in the literature and the journal received all kinds of letters to the editor. www.aafp.org/afp/2001/0115/p220.html (For some reason, this reference didn't make it into the newest post on NLQ, but it is on my website when I state in that most recent post on NLQ: "but it does not account for failure to comprehend the meaning of the data in their other listed sources."
I apologize if it seems like I am focusing on the live births issue as some argument to help save women. I am working on it now to demonstrate how INAPPROPRIATE it is to use this (non)measure as a way to address primary concerns about ectopic pregnancy. I spent the better part of about five blog posts recently on my own blog related to this topic already.
I've moved on to explain the many reasons why the "1 in 60 million" is also irrelevant. It is also a big deal because Vision Forum did not faithfully quote the literature (and it was not peer reviewed medical journal data anyway. It was a news piece on the BBC for common consumption, likely listed along side an article about the latest hat that Camilla Parker Mrs. Prince of Wales wore that week.)
And the 60-100 babies issue became a bigger deal to me this week because I just discovered that VF listed sources about this, claiming that they contain information that I can't find in the reference or in any other reference. No one at the AAOOG, AAPLOG, NRTL, the CDC proper, MMWR, etc can find any data and don't know of any such references.
So that's why this is my latest focus, not because I think maternal mortality is insignificant.
The only thing that should be relevant to the care of a woman in the first trimester of an ectopic pregnancy is that the leading cause of death of pregnant women in the first trimester is ectopic pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 22:29:12 GMT -5
Please understand any communicated frustration is directed at the ignorance and exploitation of Vision Forum and Samaritan Ministries.
This week, I reviewed all of the sources that Kim lists in her Samaritan Ministries article (I don't know if they are all in her blog post). I am steamed that she or whoever else looked at those sources to cherry pick survival rates out and the dramatic improvement in survival rates from 1970- 1989 and can yet completely ignore the information also included in these articles about the maternal mortality rates and the morbidity implications.
I'm steamed about that, not at anyone here.
I'm sorry if I come across as brash. It is not at the question -- it is because a group of people who market themselves as resources to help people procure and pay for healthcare can behave this way with impunity. It is a black mark on Christianity and as a Christian and as a nurse I am both angry and ashamed at what these people have done.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 18, 2010 22:30:20 GMT -5
Jemand, i completely agree with what you say - but I think the legislation may just be there for legislators to show off, not to actually be used, in most cases. I think the real problem is that creeping foot-dragging, which is the natural result of all the anti-abortion propaganda we've been steeped in. That kind of devaluing of a pregnant woman's life in the mind of doctors and other caregivers is really disturbing, and doesn't require any kind of legal or policy changes to have a negative effect. Well, no, but surely it couldn't help matters to just up and make it legal. This sounds a lot like the equivocation that happened around the issue of torture in the aftermath of 9/11: "Well, look, it's not like the CIA hadn't been torturing people for years anyway." Well, no, but again... The mainstreaming of torture that happened when it was codified in law was surely an alarming development in the "land of the free." And not at all good for humanity. I think the same is true of the expansion of the conscience laws to the extent that they can be used for any reason. It's just not a good thing when our society starts protecting behaviors that fly in the face of our best human instincts (i.e., torture and conscience clause protection at any cost).
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 18, 2010 22:45:24 GMT -5
I also know nothing about hospitals dissembling or failing to provide care that they think is inappropriate.
I once quit a recovery room job after three days because I had no clue that they did abortions and went back to work in critical care (though the hours are tougher). I was told that I could refuse to care for those patients which was not really my issue. They thought I was odd when I said that I would have more trouble being okay around the doctors.
The profession is bound to give informed consent. Now that might mean that I might cry with you the whole way as I transported you to another facility that provided services that I could not ethically perform myself, but I would be duty bound to you to inform you and get you to the care you needed.
I have no knowledge of any kind of problematic pro-life decision-making, except for medically ill OB patients who landed in my ICU, and doctors were walking the fine line of trying to keep the woman stable until the baby was viable enough to make it. Several experiences with the NICU team invading my own medical unit... And the doctors worked with the families and were as pro-life committed as the families -- and those doctors were not necessarily pro-life personally.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 18, 2010 23:02:48 GMT -5
I've been following this discussion but have been too upset to say much.
The very real fact that there are Christian leaders who feel that as a woman, my life is of far less value than a man's (I can come to no other conclusion), has been brought home to me in force.
I was aware of it before, of course-- but the knowledge that to Doug Phillips and his ilk, I am actually less than fully human, has had a deep emotional impact on me as a result of this discussion.
These people are manipulating statistics to get women to reject clearly necessary medical treatment. They have to be aware on some level, that they are doing this. They can't possibly completely ignore the fact that without treatment, a woman's chance of survival is very slim. And yet they persist. Why?
If we were talking about some surgery that might cost a man's life-- might cost Doug Phillips' own life-- I feel certain he would be singing an entirely different tune. But in the very core of his thinking, a woman's life is simply not worth saving. He'd rather take the miniscule chance that one baby (it might be a boy!) might in one obscure instance make it through, than face the looming FACT that the woman is facing nearly certain death.
To Doug Phillips, I might as well be a cow or a sheep. That's all the value he places on my life. And he claims to follow the same Christ I do.
It makes me sick and sad.
|
|