|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 14, 2010 7:31:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 14, 2010 8:50:57 GMT -5
FWIW, I present the following: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/443373.stmwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3294090www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6823368... From these it appears that not every ectopic pregnancy proves fatal to mother or child. So maybe there is some room for a judicious wait and see stance. I think it is like so many other things where it could be a calculatled risk. I, for one, would hesitate to call anyone a murderer for either dealing with it medically early in the game, or for waiting to see what happens and ending up with a bad outcome. Regarding the "spanking" death of that little girl, I'm concerned that the logical fallacy of "argument from abuse" may be used to paint anyone who uses any form of corporeal punishment with the same brush. I would be very surprised to learn that Vision Forum, Samaritan Ministries, or the Pearls approved of what happened in that little girl's death. And just in case anyone is wondering, I may spank my younger children maybe once a year using my hand, so I'm not over the top with it. I prefer the "super nanny" approach and have also learned that the more self governed I am, the more inherent authority I carry so that it often only requires a look or a few words of caution to correct my kids now.
|
|
|
Post by chbernat on Jun 14, 2010 8:53:51 GMT -5
wow. That's all I have to say. Wow.
My last pregnancy was life threatening to me. Like Michelle Duggar, I was admitted into the hospital with preeclamsia. Unlike Michelle Duggar, I developed something far worse and the one thing that is the leading cause of maternal/fetal death: HELLP syndrome. If I had developed this syndrome not six weeks earlier, the medical advise would have remained the same: delivery of the baby was the only way to save my life. Michelle and Jim Bob did the same thing with their own Josie...and Josie was considerably smaller than my own baby.
So my question is, if the baby would not have been "viable" (which is about 22-24 weeks) would the "delivery" of the baby be considered by these whacko groups to be an abortion? And would Jim Bob and Michelle have done the same thing had Josie not been viable?
To follow that logic one would also have to ask the question, when a women miscarries and needs a D&C is that considered an abortion? D&C's are preformed on live babies during an abortion as well as on those babies that have died following a miscarriage. But the babies bodies always get destroyed during this procedure. What does a mother do then? Retain the placenta and die or hemorrage?
This theory is incredibly unsound and terribly frightening. I know enough women that could be suckered into believing it.
I want to see the mainstream Evangelical Movement address this issue and SPEAK OUT AGAINST these groups. Its such a shame that someone hasn't raised the awareness before now. This was a 2008 statement of belief...and its 2010.
The Christian church in America is weak and it makes me sick. Thank you NLQ for raising the issue!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 14, 2010 9:20:30 GMT -5
I wonder if Samaritan Ministries receives federal funding as part of the Faith-Based Initiatives program?
|
|
|
Post by amaranth on Jun 14, 2010 10:21:26 GMT -5
"Per the ministry’s policy and the subscriber’s agreement, the group denies payment for treatment of any conditions resulting from sinful behavior (e.g., sexually transmitted disease, substance abuse recovery, etc.). "
This particular phrase caught my eye. So what, they only agree to pay for the medical bills of perfect people? They'll help you as long as you don't sin, but if you do, you're on your own???
As Christians, isn't this EXACTLY who they should be helping? Aren't "sinful people" doing "sinful behaviors" EXACTLY who Jesus spent all his time around, trying to help them? I have this mental image of Jesus doing a big *facepalm*. The hypocrisy of these people boggles my mind.
And I don't know where anyone gets off in condemning women to die if their pregnancies go wrong, especially since we have the medical procedures to prevent it. I don't remember the place in the Bible where it states that children's lives are more valuable than their parents'. You know, if a woman's body starts shutting down after the dozenth child or so, maybe that's a clue that women really AREN'T built to bear that many children?? That maybe a woman's worth to God is in fact not determined by how willing she is to breed until she dies?
But I'm probably preaching to the choir here, aren't I?
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Jun 14, 2010 10:33:06 GMT -5
"Per the ministry’s policy and the subscriber’s agreement, the group denies payment for treatment of any conditions resulting from sinful behavior (e.g., sexually transmitted disease, substance abuse recovery, etc.). "This particular phrase caught my eye. So what, they only agree to pay for the medical bills of perfect people? They'll help you as long as you don't sin, but if you do, you're on your own??? As Christians, isn't this EXACTLY who they should be helping? Aren't "sinful people" doing "sinful behaviors" EXACTLY who Jesus spent all his time around, trying to help them? I have this mental image of Jesus doing a big *facepalm*. The hypocrisy of these people boggles my mind. And I don't know where anyone gets off in condemning women to die if their pregnancies go wrong, especially since we have the medical procedures to prevent it. I don't remember the place in the Bible where it states that children's lives are more valuable than their parents'. You know, if a woman's body starts shutting down after the dozenth child or so, maybe that's a clue that women really AREN'T built to bear that many children?? That maybe a woman's worth to God is in fact not determined by how willing she is to breed until she dies? But I'm probably preaching to the choir here, aren't I? Welcome, Amaranth, and your response to the ectopic article is right on...thank you. Hypocrisy is such a scarey thing. The very people we need to be loving we reject? That's just re-gusting! No wonder so many people quit being believers! This is so not like Jesus!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 14, 2010 10:57:19 GMT -5
FWIW, I present the following: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/443373.stmwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3294090www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6823368... From these it appears that not every ectopic pregnancy proves fatal to mother or child. So maybe there is some room for a judicious wait and see stance. I think it is like so many other things where it could be a calculatled risk. I, for one, would hesitate to call anyone a murderer for either dealing with it medically early in the game, or for waiting to see what happens and ending up with a bad outcome. Regarding the "spanking" death of that little girl, I'm concerned that the logical fallacy of "argument from abuse" may be used to paint anyone who uses any form of corporeal punishment with the same brush. I would be very surprised to learn that Vision Forum, Samaritan Ministries, or the Pearls approved of what happened in that little girl's death. And just in case anyone is wondering, I may spank my younger children maybe once a year using my hand, so I'm not over the top with it. I prefer the "super nanny" approach and have also learned that the more self governed I am, the more inherent authority I carry so that it often only requires a look or a few words of caution to correct my kids now. I heard ectopic pregnancy compared to a gunshot in the gut, with respect to the damage caused by rupturing the fallopian tube. I still think that's quite an apt description, since I bet you could find even more examples of people surviving gunshots to the gut than those two stories. (third link wasn't working for me.) Not to say it's never going to work, but would the "pro-life" groups refuse treatment for a gunshot wound saying god would fix it? If so, why not here? I don't really have much of a point here, just saying we don't really focus on 1 in 60 million odds of life over death in pretty much any other case, just ones which only affect women (and might create men!).
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 14, 2010 11:21:35 GMT -5
One of the problems with the Vision Forum position is the "black and white" or "all or nothing" type of thought demanded by the group.
The ectopic pregnancy issue dramatically demonstrates their all/nothing style by failing to differentiate two important types of ectopic pregnancy: TUBAL and NON-TUBAL. 95-98 percent of all ectopic pregnancies are tubal, but Vision Forum has "written the law" which ignores the predominant group.
I wholeheartedly agree and acknowledge that non-tubal ectopic pregnancies can actually give the baby a chance to survive, but tubal pregnancies constrict blood flow by limiting the development of the placenta to such a degree, the unborn baby is literally dying by the time the woman realizes that she is pregnant. That is why low HCG and very slow rise in HCG is an indicator of a tubal pregnancy. The fallopian tube drastically constricts growth, a fatal condition for the baby. Because of the pregnancy itself (the hormones produced by the pregnancy) and the close anatomical proximity to very large arteries in the body, when the fallopian tube ruptures, hemorrhage becomes a major problem. This is not (always) the case for other types of ectopic pregnancy.
But life is messy and individuals are messier still, and each pregnancy is unique. As is aptly noted, they only address the ideal and condemn the unusual. Tubal pregnancies do not advance their agenda. The rare cases of non-tubal ectopic pregnancies do. Rather than teach people that their are very rare types of ectopic pregnancies that can support the unborn baby for a limited time (fewer still make it to a stage of viability), they completely deny any "gray area" by denying tubal pregnancies and non-viable non-tubal ectopic pregnancies as well.
A pregnancy wherein the placenta attached to her bowel is obviously a non-tubal pregnancy, and they are generally far more fatal than a tubal pregnancy -- a fast track to peritonitis and bowel rupture -- like attaching baby and mother to a bag of poison (because of the bacteria in the bowel when it eventually ruptures). But they lump these women in there also. I think that is is a wonderful and remarkable thing to celebrate when women can sustain a pregnancy when the placenta has attached to the ovary or the outside of the uterus itself or the abdominal wall. But tubal pregnancies can even sometimes wrap themselves around the bowel requiring surgical intervention. All of these women are shamed and condemned by the Vision Forum moral mandate.
Lydia Schatz also represents another messy individual. Vision Forum doesn't accommodate for individuality -- they require individuals to accommodate the group. How dare that family show imperfection!
I expect the reader to think and realize that Vision Forum sweeps the unusual examples under the rug or condemns them rather than acknowledging individuality. A group such as theirs presumably seeks to help individuals achieve a certain goal, but somewhere along the way, the group becomes far more important than the individuals they seek to serve.
Both tubal pregnancies and the Schatz Family demonstrate the flaws in the system and become objects used as means to justify the virtue of the end. It becomes a bureaucracy that exists to preserve the system at the expense of individuals -- it becomes collectivistic. As the pro-life community shrinks back from direct engagement of Samaritan Ministries, the Evangelical Christian community has abandoned the Schatz Family. Rather than risk the criticism and potential loss of donations, organizations that support pro-life causes and ethical Christian causes remain silent on both issues.
|
|
|
Post by burris on Jun 14, 2010 11:24:54 GMT -5
Isn't Phillips the same guy who suggested arming students after the Virginia Tech shootings?
I guess killing in self defense can be considered "elective" only when women do it.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 14, 2010 11:48:10 GMT -5
wow. That's all I have to say. Wow. My last pregnancy was life threatening to me. Like Michelle Duggar, I was admitted into the hospital with preeclamsia. Unlike Michelle Duggar, I developed something far worse and the one thing that is the leading cause of maternal/fetal death: HELLP syndrome. If I had developed this syndrome not six weeks earlier, the medical advise would have remained the same: delivery of the baby was the only way to save my life. Michelle and Jim Bob did the same thing with their own Josie...and Josie was considerably smaller than my own baby. So my question is, if the baby would not have been "viable" (which is about 22-24 weeks) would the "delivery" of the baby be considered by these whacko groups to be an abortion? And would Jim Bob and Michelle have done the same thing had Josie not been viable? To follow that logic one would also have to ask the question, when a women miscarries and needs a D&C is that considered an abortion? D&C's are preformed on live babies during an abortion as well as on those babies that have died following a miscarriage. But the babies bodies always get destroyed during this procedure. What does a mother do then? Retain the placenta and die or hemorrage? This theory is incredibly unsound and terribly frightening. I know enough women that could be suckered into believing it. I want to see the mainstream Evangelical Movement address this issue and SPEAK OUT AGAINST these groups. Its such a shame that someone hasn't raised the awareness before now. This was a 2008 statement of belief...and its 2010. The Christian church in America is weak and it makes me sick. Thank you NLQ for raising the issue!!!!!!! I recently expanded upon this subject on my own blog, but you can also read it as one full post HERE: undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2010/06/will-you-die-for-cause-or-will-you-live.htmlIn that post, I describe two women who were not expected to gain consciousness as a result of the complications of pregnancy. One of those women who left my ICU in a coma had HELLP syndrome. If she is still surviving, she is likely in a nursing home. But in an "In a Shoe" blog post that Phillips lauded in 2008 and that Samaritan ministries republished in a newsletter, the Vision Forum affiliate and employee that authored the blog post downplays the significance and incidence of both ectopic and tubal pregnancy, suggesting that they are not significant. (News Flash: the statistics she quotes and the low death rates are based upon all women, most of whom have pre-emptive life-saving surgery to treat tubal pregnancy! They don't correct for those who "have elective abortions" to save the woman's life making the incidence of death very low. The death rate for those who did not have access to pre-emptive surgery is much higher.) But somehow, what they have suggested in that article becomes magically non-utilitarian? inashoe.com/2008/06/11/ectopic-pregnancy-and-the-sanctity-of-life/It is very sad, because Vision Forum's paternalism shines through again. The poor masses are too ignorant to understand, so VF will understand for them and tell them what to think. If the individual must stand alone before God to give an account of their actions, I think that the individual must be given full disclosure and informed consent about the matter so that they can make their own decisions. Vision Forum teaches that all men will stand before God and face punishment in eternal hell for their wrongdoings that are not covered by the Blood of Jesus, right? I might not be so upset if VF had some arrangement for God wherein they bear the eternal consequences for what their following does. If they had worked it out with God to be the stewards of the conscience for their followers and accountable for their consequences, it would be a different matter. But in our own realm, not only do they abandon women when the "non-normative" happens, they castigate them. But they don't engage the unusual, and they build their law on tough individual cases. Though law theory teaches that the tough cases should never be the basis of law, lawyers make careers out of the practice.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 14, 2010 11:53:21 GMT -5
You know, I am absolutely pro-life. But this ectopic pregnancy position makes no sense whatsoever to me. Almost no chance whatsoever of a viable pregnancy and almost a certain chance of infertility or death of the mother. This should not be that difficult a choice to make. This is not really an elective procedure. It's right to save a drowning person if you can do so. But if the drowning person is causing you to drown also, thereby killing you both, then it's time to let them go. To me, the unfortunate ectopic fetus is the drowning person who can't be saved. I'm not required to sacrifice my own life in what is a lost cause. But what actually angers me is the attitude of the teachers who espouse these things. The intense study of scripture to make absolutely sure that every textual stone is not only turned over but run through a mill to mine every possible clue as to how to respond/react to every single situation and occurrence that one could face in a thousand lifetimes. They pore over scriptures for rules for every single decision and circumstance of life in the same way that another would throw bones or use runes to guide their lives. I mean, clearly I am in favor of scripture, I'm a Christian too. But the way they study it and make pronouncements on it, it's like they are deciding what it means to be human by intensively examining their own right foot. It's the only thing they can see, the only thing from which they allow input. They are so focused on each individual word of scripture that they miss out common sense, compassion, and the heart of God. Those things have no place in their religious world view. These issues of human lives as they are actually lived are called 'pastoral problems'. But these people do not have a pastor's heart. Real people are of no interest to them, only 'the law'. Pisses me off. (I'm having issues this weekend. Can you tell? )
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 14, 2010 11:57:32 GMT -5
Isn't Phillips the same guy who suggested arming students after the Virginia Tech shootings? I guess killing in self defense can be considered "elective" only when women do it. If you take note of the link to Ethics Daily in the post on NLQ, that article also points out that one of the speakers at the Witherspoon School that year was Bill Einwechter. As the author of the Ethics Daily article notes, Einwecter is the one who published an article supporting the stoning of disobedient teens. Einwecter also teaches the Old Testament idea that the next four generations pay for the sins of the sinner. Perhaps experiencing an ectopic pregnancy is one of the consequences of someone else's sin, generations before? And somehow, Christ's deliverance from sin is impotent when it comes to those sins that visit subsequent generations? www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=12978Also noted in the Ethics Daily article: In 2003 Phillips wrote an article comparing the "life of the mother" argument with convicted murderer Paul Hill's flawed justification of killing a doctor who performed abortions in order to save unborn lives. Both arguments, he said, "are terribly guilty of borrowing from pragmatic, non-biblical arguments, and twisting the Scriptures to justify a desired result."
"First, a baby is not a willful aggressor," Phillips wrote. "This ends the debate on justifiable homicide. A baby neither intends the harm, nor acts aggressively against its mother. (In fact, if 'blame' is to be passed, it should rest on the mother, not the baby, since it was the mother's body which produced the circumstances in which the baby has found himself.) The Bible makes no provision for executing an innocent party (one which lacks intent to harm) in order to help another.
"Second, while the unborn baby in the case of an ectopic pregnancy may pose a threat which could materialize into a harm to the mother, the threat is not imminent in the classic sense, nor is it conclusive that the baby's presence necessarily will cause harm. All that is known is that it might cause harm. Consequently, the murder of the baby takes place in anticipation of a statistical possibility. Here again, the biblical requirements for justifiable homicide are not met."
In another article Phillips described a woman who would abort to save her own life with an analogy about a mother in a lifeboat with food and water enough for only one throwing her child overboard.
"Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself?" he asked. "Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues? Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as 'an unfortunate, but necessary evil.' After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die. Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night?"
"In point of fact, this woman's behavior is utterly despicable," he answered the hypothetical question. "Susie is a criminal. Her behavior is indefensible. To murder another is wrong, but for a mother to murder her own child as an act of self-preservation is a crime of unspeakable ignominy."
Phillips uses those kinds of case studies in an annual Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy, a four-day crash course for students, attorneys, lawmakers, pastors and fathers "with a Reformation understanding of the Scriptures as the source book for law and liberty and the only sure foundation for addressing the challenging ethical questions of the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by mickee on Jun 14, 2010 13:00:08 GMT -5
But what actually angers me is the attitude of the teachers who espouse these things. The intense study of scripture to make absolutely sure that every textual stone is not only turned over but run through a mill to mine every possible clue as to how to respond/react to every single situation and occurrence that one could face in a thousand lifetimes. They pore over scriptures for rules for every single decision and circumstance of life in the same way that another would throw bones or use runes to guide their lives. I mean, clearly I am in favor of scripture, I'm a Christian too. But the way they study it and make pronouncements on it, it's like they are deciding what it means to be human by intensively examining their own right foot. It's the only thing they can see, the only thing from which they allow input. They are so focused on each individual word of scripture that they miss out common sense, compassion, and the heart of God. Those things have no place in their religious world view. These issues of human lives as they are actually lived are called 'pastoral problems'. But these people do not have a pastor's heart. Real people are of no interest to them, only 'the law'. ) I agree! And the more and more I read about this movement, I see they have no understanding that we are now living under grace. It's all about legalism and their own "perfect" (sarcasm) laws.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 14, 2010 13:15:32 GMT -5
So, I share the horror that others are expressing here about the Vision Forum statement. That said, it seems really unsurprising to me. Whenever I asked questions about this kind of thing as a child, all of the QF people I knew would argue that abortion was not permitted under any circumstances. They understood the death of a mother due to pregnancy complications as a kind of "martyrdom." I mostly knew Reformed/Orthodox Presbyterian types, so they further argued that the fate of these mothers had been pre-ordained.
I guess I'm surprised that this shocks anyone, whereas I'm a little surprised that Vision Forum hadn't made some sort of official pronouncement about this until recently. I thought that Michelle Duggar's risky pregnancy would become even more of a talking point within QF communities than it already has. Something about how God blessed her because she and his family were faithful, blah blah blah... Beyond this, of course, many women here have told similar stories about high risk pregnancies. Coming close to death--or actually dying--seems par for the course to me.
I guess I'm just trying to understand what people are reacting to here, not trivialize or dismiss what anyone is saying. Have ectopic pregnancies in particular been kept out of official rhetoric in the past? Is that the element here that's new?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 14, 2010 13:24:36 GMT -5
Per the ministry’s policy and the subscriber’s agreement, the group denies payment for treatment of any conditions resulting from sinful behavior (e.g., sexually transmitted disease, substance abuse recovery, etc.). Whoa... I'd love to know where they stand on obesity-related diseases like heart disease and diabetes... Is obesity the result of "sinful behavior"? Pffttt... Seems like just about any health need could be denied on this basis. Even a genetic disorder is potentially just "the sins of the father visited on his children." I get that they think sex outside of marriage is sinful, but... What about people who become infected with sexually transmitted diseases as a result of rape? Is the rape victim guilty of "sinful behavior"? Of causing "temptation" or something? Wow... You know, I see from the link that this is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, meaning that it very likely receives federal funding through the Faith-Based Initiative program. I think we should all write letters to the body that oversees this funding to complain. ETA: Wow... So, I'm reading more of their documents. They have...some weird rules for membership. You have to attend church at least three out of four weeks per month, and submit a letter to Samaritan Ministries if extenuating circumstances prevent this. Further, you have to sign on to the belief that Christians shouldn't sue each other--and essentially promise never to sue them. The more I read, the more this organization sounds like a scam, not a charity.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 14, 2010 13:30:07 GMT -5
So, I share the horror that others are expressing here about the Vision Forum statement. That said, it seems really unsurprising to me. Whenever I asked questions about this kind of thing as a child, all of the QF people I knew would argue that abortion was not permitted under any circumstances. They understood the death of a mother due to pregnancy complications as a kind of "martyrdom." I mostly knew Reformed/Orthodox Presbyterian types, so they further argued that the fate of these mothers had been pre-ordained. I guess I'm surprised that this shocks anyone, whereas I'm a little surprised that Vision Forum hadn't made some sort of official pronouncement about this until recently. I thought that Michelle Duggar's risky pregnancy would become even more of a talking point within QF communities than it already has. Something about how God blessed her because she and his family were faithful, blah blah blah... Beyond this, of course, many women here have told similar stories about high risk pregnancies. Coming close to death--or actually dying--seems par for the course to me. I guess I'm just trying to understand what people are reacting to here, not trivialize or dismiss what anyone is saying. Have ectopic pregnancies in particular been kept out of official rhetoric in the past? Is that the element here that's new? KM, I believe that the case is unusual and "new" as of 2008, anyway, because they transposed one of their "understood" and unspoken rules into a formally declared and written rule by using the Appeal of Authority to advance the thesis. Manipulative groups that employ spiritually abusive and cultic tactics generally tend to shy away from making such definitive statements. Groups like this operate with two sets of rules. They have formal rules and written doctrinal statements, and they have the "Unwritten Rules" that are conveyed through rhetoric and through social pressure and proof. The expectation of martyrdom does absolutely shine through in terms of the unwritten rules, but groups generally avoid translating those rules into written statements for plausible deniability. (That's why looking at a church's doctrinal statement cannot tell you if the group is spiritually abusive or trustworthy. The Unwritten Rules of a group are generally and purposely informal. Many people would turn and run if they were.) It also why they assign code words to certain things as they do with "normative" and "non-normative." Everyone KNOWS that "non-normative" is absolutely tantamount to sin and shame, but if someone says "you called this sin and me a sinner," they can deny it because it was never said in such a way. In terms of the "letter of the law" they are clean, but functionally and in the spirit of the law, they are not. They play people and situations to their advantage to guide the thinking of their followers. When caught, they play innocent and dissemble instead.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 14, 2010 13:38:01 GMT -5
cindy: Thanks for explaining.
|
|
|
Post by island on Jun 14, 2010 13:51:58 GMT -5
Just to put the BBC news story above (‘Miracle Baby’)in perspective…
The last time the CDC did an estimate, they calculated that about 2% of the many millions of pregnancies in the 90s in the US were ectopic. (This may not include early pregnancy failures that don’t result in a trip to the emergency room.) The poster above found links to one BBC news story and two case reports (from 1988 and 1993) that ended with a living mother and baby. Delivering a baby that resulted from an ectopic pregnancy is **incredibly** rare. Taking a “watch and wait” approach would kill hundreds or thousands of women every year. (No exaggeration.)
It saddens me that women’s health is so impacted by people like Vision Forum. How many women are going to hemorrhage to death because some evangelical minister told them they should wait for a miracle instead of seeking medical treatment?
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Jun 14, 2010 14:26:52 GMT -5
According to the first article, the calculated risk is: He said the chances of such an embryo surviving is one in 60 million. I don't even buy lottery tickets, and that one in 60 million would be a positive payout. One in 60 MILLION! No way a sane person would play those odds. 59,999,999 mothers/babies die for each one mother/baby who makes it. The risk has been calculated, and it is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 14, 2010 14:32:49 GMT -5
Just to put the BBC news story above (‘Miracle Baby’)in perspective… The last time the CDC did an estimate, they calculated that about 2% of the many millions of pregnancies in the 90s in the US were ectopic. (This may not include early pregnancy failures that don’t result in a trip to the emergency room.) The poster above found links to one BBC news story and two case reports (from 1988 and 1993) that ended with a living mother and baby. Delivering a baby that resulted from an ectopic pregnancy is **incredibly** rare. Taking a “watch and wait” approach would kill hundreds or thousands of women every year. (No exaggeration.) It saddens me that women’s health is so impacted by people like Vision Forum. How many women are going to hemorrhage to death because some evangelical minister told them they should wait for a miracle instead of seeking medical treatment? I just found an excellent peer-reviewed article presenting changes in the statistics regarding ectopic pregnancy. emedicine.medscape.com/article/258768-overviewThis site is peer reviewed by a board of physicians which adds credibility to the information presented there. In other words, the articles are carefully scrutinized by other physicians who hold one another accountable and ensure that the information presented there is factual and represents the consensus in medicine. This is not the case with many other medical information sites or even an article written by a single physician that appears on a blog somewhere or appears as a "letter to the editor" in a journal. (Sometimes articles are relegated to letters to the editor when they don't pass muster as a full article.)
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Jun 14, 2010 15:51:52 GMT -5
wow. That's all I have to say. Wow. My last pregnancy was life threatening to me. Like Michelle Duggar, I was admitted into the hospital with preeclamsia. Unlike Michelle Duggar, I developed something far worse and the one thing that is the leading cause of maternal/fetal death: HELLP syndrome. If I had developed this syndrome not six weeks earlier, the medical advise would have remained the same: delivery of the baby was the only way to save my life. Michelle and Jim Bob did the same thing with their own Josie...and Josie was considerably smaller than my own baby. So my question is, if the baby would not have been "viable" (which is about 22-24 weeks) would the "delivery" of the baby be considered by these whacko groups to be an abortion? And would Jim Bob and Michelle have done the same thing had Josie not been viable? I had HELLP as well. Its very dangerous, nothing to screw around with. Fortunately, I was 32 weeks along when it all hit the fan. So no worries about viability. Me and baby are both healthy now, but it was close. I am glad there were no Vision Forum whackos involved in my health care decisions. They surely would have screwed it up. Their moral reasoning seems to be based on determining what is most restrictive, burdensome, and onerous rather than what is fair, reasonable, and prudent. I'm concerned that people will take VF's horrible advice on ectopic pregnancies to heart. Sad. Just wanted to say "Hey" to another HELLP survivor. I don't run into many.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jun 14, 2010 17:24:40 GMT -5
ETA: Wow... So, I'm reading more of their documents. They have...some weird rules for membership. You have to attend church at least three out of four weeks per month, and submit a letter to Samaritan Ministries if extenuating circumstances prevent this. Further, you have to sign on to the belief that Christians shouldn't sue each other--and essentially promise never to sue them. The more I read, the more this organization sounds like a scam, not a charity. We used to run ads for Samaritan Ministries in our newspaper for quite a number of years. I can't remember now if we ever actually joined the program or not ~ but I do remember the application process. It was through Samaritan Ministries that I was encouraged to find a lay midwife and attempt VBAC at home in order to keep the medical costs down. I remember talking to someone on the phone about my birthing history (three c-sections at the time) and being told that since I'd already had c-sections, my bills would not be covered if I had another cesarean ~ but if I had a VBAC, it would be covered. After that conversation, it seemed to me that VBAC must be relatively safe even for a woman who has already had three c-sections, otherwise this ministry would not be encouraging me to give it a try. That is when I started digging for more pro-VBAC info (had to order books through inter-library loan) ~ and ended up consulting with Judy Jones ... you all know how disastrously that story ended, so I won't repeat the details here.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 14, 2010 17:28:03 GMT -5
ETA: Wow... So, I'm reading more of their documents. They have...some weird rules for membership. You have to attend church at least three out of four weeks per month, and submit a letter to Samaritan Ministries if extenuating circumstances prevent this. Further, you have to sign on to the belief that Christians shouldn't sue each other--and essentially promise never to sue them. The more I read, the more this organization sounds like a scam, not a charity. We used to run ads for Samaritan Ministries in our newspaper for quite a number of years. I can't remember now if we ever actually joined the program or not ~ but I do remember the application process. It was through Samaritan Ministries that I was encouraged to find a lay midwife and attempt VBAC at home in order to keep the medical costs down. I remember talking to someone on the phone about my birthing history (three c-sections at the time) and being told that since I'd already had c-sections, my bills would not be covered if I had another cesarean ~ but if I had a VBAC, it would be covered. After that conversation, it seemed to me that VBAC must be relatively safe even for a woman who has already had three c-sections, otherwise this ministry would not be encouraging me to give it a try. That is when I started digging for more pro-VBAC info (had to order books through inter-library loan) ~ and ended up consulting with Judy Jones ... you all know how disastrously that story ended, so I won't repeat the details here. well... I DO suppose that if your patients often die, you'll save money in follow up care... They sound like they are generally promoting very dangerous medical "advice."
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 14, 2010 17:44:01 GMT -5
...Because having prior cesareans was considered a sin? I'm trying to understand why they won't approve a cesarean if one were necessary. Do they believe it is never necessary? Walk me through the logic here.
They sound like they have a lot of lay people acting as intake and information counselors rather than actual medical personnel making these decisions. Of course there are a lot of dreadful medical personnel out there (I spent my career dealing with the dregs of the medical community and researching their 'mistakes' so I hold no illusions about the infallibility of people wearing white coats, although there are many fine physicians out there too). So they could employ some of the bottom-feeders as their medical advisers and still come off sounding like they know what they are talking about all the while leading people down the garden path...
The whole thing is so judgmental. Every 'insurance' has to have criteria for determining who they serve and what conditions are covered. That's standard, and as long as everyone is aware of the rules that's not a problem for me. What bothers me about Samaritan is that they are making decisions based on the perceived holiness of the recipient. Their 'means test' is based on a superficial morality of the patient and not on the suffering of the patient or their need for assistance and mercy. It seems like an extraordinarily un-Christian tack to take. To me.
|
|
|
Post by amaranth on Jun 14, 2010 17:56:14 GMT -5
"Shall we bless a mother who kills her own child to save herself?" he asked. "Are we proud of such a woman? Shall we sing of her virtues? Perhaps we should just chalk-up her decision to feed her son to the sharks as 'an unfortunate, but necessary evil.' After all, she was just acting in self-defense. It was either the mother or the child. One would live and the other would die. Who could blame Mama for wanting to fight for her life, even if it meant that her son would be torn to pieces in the darkness of night?" Completely ignoring the obvious fact that if the mother dies and the child is too young to look after him/herself, the child will die, too. Not only that, she would die and leave the child to die alone...compassionate, that. (Or not.) Maybe the mother will choose for her and her child to die together...maybe that is the noblest course. Or maybe, just maybe, she has a husband, parents, relatives, friends...many, many other people in her life that would be devastated if she died. Does the baby's chance at life automatically trump the fact that maybe a woman doesn't want to leave her husband alone in life? And these people have the gall to call themselves "pro-life". Encouraging women to not abort for any reason is like encouraging someone to walk into a burning furnace, and when they protest, pointing out that people do, occasionally, survive third-degree burns all over their bodies. I mean, it's like they can't even be honest about the fact that they are commanding women to die in order to (maybe) bring children into the world.
|
|