new type of "late term abortion"

[mrhnau]

Firstly, let's be clear that the OB/GYN organization DID NOT advocate euthanizing these newborns, but called for an open discussion of the topic.

In many cases, it isn't a matter of euthanizing these newborns...it's a matter of keeping them alive by extraordinary means. If euthanasia is playing God, so are some of these extraordinary means.

What is the objective of medicine, if not to keep the sick alive, maintain health, and return the sick to health? We do extroardinary things on a daily basis to hundreds of patients, which is part of mans ingenuity and the progress of science.

When we start attaching dollar signs to things, we start having issues... are we going to start killing everyone that gets very ill? Should we start attaching worth to an individual in comparison to medical costs or burden to soceity? What about a teenager that gets cancer? Maybe some incurable form? At what age do we draw the line? First week of life? First year? teenage years? Anyone seriously/terminally ill? The suggestion might sound extreme, but a good 100 years ago abortion was almost unheard of. What will be the "extreme" of tommorow?

What I don't want is medical decisions being made based on a spreadsheet of net worth or potential value vs medical costs/effort. Life is worth more than that.

 

[Makalakumu]

but a good 100 years ago abortion was almost unheard of...

The truth about that, may surprise you. If you look at alot of the women who were behind the Temperance and Women's Sufferage Movement, many of them spoke freely of abortions that they, their mothers, and their grandmothes had had.

 

[Kacey]

When we start attaching dollar signs to things, we start having issues... are we going to start killing everyone that gets very ill? Should we start attaching worth to an individual in comparison to medical costs or burden to soceity? What about a teenager that gets cancer? Maybe some incurable form? At what age do we draw the line? First week of life? First year? teenage years? Anyone seriously/terminally ill?

All valid points... and often addressed by those without insurance, or whose insurance will not cover a particular treatment.

The suggestion might sound extreme, but a good 100 years ago abortion was almost unheard of. What will be the "extreme" of tommorow?

A good question; however, I will point out that abortion has been around for millenia. Abortion in Asia - specifically China - has been documented as long as 2500 years ago, which suggests that it existed well before that time. Many of these methods were ineffective - generally, they were based on deliberately engaging in activities known to increase the risk of miscarriage - but nonetheless they existed.

The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids abortion: " Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." Generally speaking, laws are written about things that happen - not things that don't happen, suggesting that abortion was common at the time.

Abortion was legal in this country at the time it was established, and in Great Britain as well; it was allowed for in common law, as long as the abortion occurred before "quickening" (generally the 4th month) and in many places throughout the pregnancy.

The first laws restricting abortion were passed in the 1820's, and spread from there.

Other sources here and here. I will make particular mention of this source which states "The Jewish faith was generally opposed to both infanticide and abortion. An exception occurred if the continuation of a pregnancy posed a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or to her other children. In such cases, the pregnant woman is actually obligated to abort the fetus; the fetus is then considered "radef" -- pursuer." That is, in a time when infant mortality was high, a living child out of infancy, and a woman of proven fertility who could care for that child, was more valuable than a fetus that had a much lower chance of survival.... which brings us back to survival of the fittest.

 

[shesulsa]

... a good 100 years ago abortion was almost unheard of.

On the prairie, dear friend, women took douches laced with things like antiseptic, iodine, lye soap, sulfer. They drank concoctions of all kinds of herbs including even snips of human hair to bring on stomach spasms. Many died.

Before then, women went to asian herbalists, native american medicine women, shamans and slave voodoo priests to engage in acts and drink concoctions to terminate their pregnancies.

Before then, women would expose themselves to illness for short periods of time in the hopes that a fever would cause miscarriage.

Women would and still do punch each other in the stomach repeatedly and exert themselves physically in order to bring about miscarriage.

Abortion in some form has been around since women have been getting pregnant and it will be here in one form or another for as long as we will be getting pregnant and it will either be legal and safe or illegal and not safe.

I suppose the choice of Americans is to either bury your head and try to believe that even the most God-fearing, religious, faithful wife would never have an abortion or you can realize that most women have had one and that many of them will lie and not admit it.

 

[Phoenix44]

When we start attaching dollar signs to things, we start having issues... are we going to start killing everyone that gets very ill? Should we start attaching worth to an individual in comparison to medical costs or burden to soceity?

mrhnau, your post seems to imply that I disagree with you. In fact, I agree with your point, and I'm asking this: are you willing to pay any price, no matter how high, to keep a severely premature infant alive? Let's take this situation: a 21 week gestation premie, with a severe brain hemorrage, seizures, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (the lung disease of prematurity). This child will require intensive medical lifelong care, special education, physical therapy. This is a common outcome in a neonatal intensive care unit.

This is a fair question, one that parents and health professionals grapple with every single day. And whatever your answer is, it has to be consistent with your morality. If you say no, there should be a limit, then you are also saying you would allow the child to die. If you say, yes, you must keep this child alive no matter what it takes, then we, as a society, must agree to pay for the care and education of this child into adulthood. Because clearly, a parent cannot afford it.

Because if you demand maximal care, but refuse to pay for it, it becomes like every other hypocritical unfunded mandate. If that child dies because we refuse to pay for his care, he's no less dead then if we simply said he doesn't deserve the care. We can't just wash our hands and say, "But I SAID the child should be saved!"