• the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    If your water breaks at 16 weeks, that is an emergency. According to the lawsuit, they knew this quite well:

    By the time Ms. Farmer arrived at TUKH, she had been evaluated and it was clear that she had lost all her amniotic fluid, and her pregnancy—which she had dreamed of and longed for—was no longer viable. And unless she received immediate medical intervention to end the pregnancy in a medical setting, she was at risk of severe blood loss, sepsis, loss of fertility, and death.

    It could not be a more obvious example of a medical error. When the law says this is allowed, the law is not at fault.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You again quoted “at risk”. High blood pressure is “at risk”. It’s not an immediate life threatening condition requiring surgery.

      She wanted an early abortion but didn’t get it because she voted against it.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You skipped over the “if she does not receive immediate medical treatment” part. Normal pregnancies, outside of giving birth, do not require immediate medical treatment at all times to avoid the risks outlined above. When you’re giving birth, you then receive the medical treatment you need.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          If she received immediate care, she would no longer be at risk. In the same way if you take drugs for high cholesterol, you will no longer be at risk for a heart attack.

          Stopping risk is preventative care, not an immediate life threat.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            If someone was stabbed and at immediate risk of bleeding to death, by your logic, immediate treatment would be “preventative care” and therefore not necessary. There’s a league of difference between taking a pill to stave off a death that will happen within a few years, and receiving physical intervention to stave off a death that will happen in a matter of days.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              If someone is stabbed and not bleeding to death, they aren’t immediately dying. They will be given a bandaid and sent home.

              She wasn’t at risk of dying when they sent her home. The early abortion would have been preventative care.

              Are you ok with every woman at 10 weeks being allowed an abortion as long as she can find any doctor that tells her, “You might be at risk.” Because all pregnancies are a risk.

              • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                The doctors stated that if she didn’t receive immediate treatment, she was at risk of death. Similarly, if someone was stabbed and at risk of death, they would receive treatment. She should have received treatment.

                If every doctor decided that every pregnancy was a severe, immediate enough risk to warrant an immediate abortion, those people should be prosecuted. That would be a grave medical error. This has not happened, and for the sake of society, I hope doctors do not come to that conclusion.