Thursday, February 23, 2006

One Doc's opinion

For those of you who don't know, I am a licensed physician in Family Medicine. I haven't been practicing long, but I am residency trained and board certified. I recently read the news on the Supreme Court's decision to hear the partial birth abortion case and felt it's time for me to throw my 2 cents in...for what it's worth.

Now, this is not an abortion post. My own personal feelings on abortion don't apply here, that's for another day. This is about medicine, and what's best for the patient (keeping in mind that we're dealing with 2 patients, mother and baby). The going argument against a ban on partial birth abortion is that no laws allow for the procedure should the mother's health become at risk. This has always interested me, so I decided to look into it.

I searched the medical literature and found NO case where partial birth abortion was the ONLY alternative available and thus saved a mother's life. So I tried to imagine a hypothetical situation. I'm not an OBGYN, but I have been trained in obstestrics and I am licensed to deliver OB care. Given the success of C-section deliveries and advances in neonatal care, I can't think of a single scenario in which partial birth abortion would be the ONLY means to save someone's life. Maybe I'm wrong and I've simply overlooked something. But I honestly don't believe such a situation could arise. I also know that this procedure is absolutely horrific, bordering on barbaric. So here's one physician who hopes that the Supreme Court pays attention to medical testimony and decides to uphold any state-imposed ban on this procedure...it's simply not necessary.

If someone out there would like to dispute my findings, please do so. I'm always willing to advance my knowledge in medicine. But I'd really like to know that if my findings are indeed correct, would anyone out there continue to voice opposition to banning this procedure? The comment line is open?

12 comments:

Justthinkin said...

Hi...popped over from the Texas Connection. One of these year's I'm going to visit everybody..lol
Ummm...very controversial post for my first comment.
I am torn. On one hand, I feel it is the woman's body and her choice. But then, some women,like some men,are very irresponsible. I personally know one who used abortion as a form of birth-control. To me, this is criminal,but we have no laws about that. I should mention I am Canadian. Maybe the States do.
With todays advances in health care, I do agree that there is is no case that would require abortion to save the mother's life. I may be wrong, but I can think of no case where it has been proven otherwise.
Just to stir the pot a bit, when does "live" begin?? To me, as a layman with only advanced paramedic training ( I was a Flight Engineer in the Canadian Airforce and we had to have search and rescue training), life begins at the point where I can find life-signs, or the lack thereof. I have spent 10 mins doing CPR trying to bring somebody back. Why? Because I thought there was life still there. I have also gone into a crash-site, and took one look at a mangled body, turned around and said forget it, let's work on this one, and had the "dead" body grab me, and survive. Who are we to know what constitutes life?

John Washburn said...

Welcome, justthinkin and thanks for the comments. You've asked a million dollar question, and here is my answer...again from a medical perspective. I believe that human life is a sequence of events. A human being grows from a single cell, to an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, a teenager, etc...until life ends. This is a process that moves through many phases, but that process ALWAYS begins with fertilization. There is no other way for life to exist. Any 'boundaries' that are placed within that process are man-made, and thus can change. For example, if we place a boundary and say that life begins at birth, then who's to say that one day that boundary can be moved to another age? Perhaps when the child is self-dependent, or capable of working or voting? Obviously, this is dangerous thinking. So the answer is to look at nature, and nature shows that the process of life has a beginning...and that beginning is ALWAYS at fertilization.

John Washburn said...

On a lighter note, evil will have to prosper for the next few days as I will be away from the computer and unable to post. Operations will resume on Monday. Take care and God bless.

Nathan Bradfield said...

Very good idea and coming from a credible source - you being licensed in ob - is awesome. We need more of this. This is what I wish I had the credibility to say. Nice post. BTW, thanks for the nice comment on my port issue post.
Nathan Bradfield - Church and State

The Chief said...

John,

I've come to the conclusion over 50# years that abortion at any stage (where the mother is not at risk) is just wrong. It's unfair, but females just have to be more responsible. And we need to make adoption a much more viable option, there are plenty of good parents out there if we didn't make to hard to adopt.

Well there I go again, mouthing off without credintials

Gayle said...

I agree with you, but alas, I too am minus the required credentials.

One thing is for certain, females and males must exercise more responsibility.

It's a fascinating subject, but I do believe, morally, that abortion is wrong. I also believe that it's going to be a political bugabear for many years to come.

Thank you for your insight to a very difficult subject.

Joubert said...

I'm going to draw attention to your post on my blog. Just excellent. I've seen the results of regular abortions (worked in hospital pharmacy for 30 years) and that was horrendous enough. I've read a description of the partial-birth abortion procedure and the only thing I can say about it is that is cold-blooded murder. There is very little that I can imagine that could be more horrifying. But then I believe that life starts at conception.

Joubert said...

PS From Alone at Sea's
Headlines from the future:


“In a related story feminist activists across America are now lobbying for ‘post-birth abortions’ claiming that “if the newborn was really a person and didn’t want to be aborted it would say so”

Dionne said...

I remember when Bill Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban. I read or heard somewhere the exact point that you bring up in your post. And I think even the AMA came out and agreed that there was never a situation where partial birth abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother. Once I heard that it always aggravated me when liberals tried to use that as an excuse not to pass the ban.

My state of Missouri passed the ban and our liberal governor at the time vetoed it using that excuse. Ugh.....

All that to say, great post and great point.

Nathan Bradfield said...

John, I like this post the more I read it, and posted on my Weekend Open Trackback for you. I hope that is ok. I want more readers to see this.
Nathan Bradfield - Church and State
http://nathanbradfield.blogspot.com

DetroitPatriotette said...

Terrific post - it's always encouraging to hear the perspective of a doctor in regards to abortion. Not sure how to use trackback with your post, but wanted you to know my post referencing yours is here.


Thank you again for your thoughtful and informative post!

Cheers,
DP

Pamela Reece said...

Excellent post! As a mother of 4 children but of 6 pregnancies I can attest to something regarding partial birth abortion. In the middle of my second pregnancy, I became RH Sensitized. For those who don't know, this is rare considering there is an injection given to a mother after giving birth called Rhogam that prevents RH- antibodies from entering the mother's bloodstream. Anyway, since I found this out during the pregnancy, my ob/gyn explained the risks involved with this health issue. The main risk to my baby. I was NEVER offerred a partial birth abortion because I started seeing specialists who monitored the levels of antibodies in my baby. In the end, I delivered a healthy baby boy via c-section. In a later pregnancy I had the sad misfortune of a still birth pre-term and required a DNC. This is was not called a partial birth abortion and it wasn't.

It is my view that there is never a reason for such an action as this procedure. To me, this is just a way to put a loophole in the abortion issue. It is not necessary. Pregnancy is always risky. Women need to know that getting pregnant and giving birth are not as simple as getting a filling at the dentist. I personally, do not know of any doctor who would violate their oath and perform a partial birth abortion knowing they are risking their liscense, legal or not. "First do know harm!"

Thank you for such a great post!