Not Our Finest Hour

http://scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/04/court_rules_att.html

With such sensitivity to this subject, and thinking about the possibility that the procedure is as described, I can't disagree with the ban. But this is not an insurmountable issue; though with the current Supreme Court, it very well may be. There are, however, more humane ways to resolved 'late term abortion' by calling it for what it is: premature, preterm induced labor and declaring the fetus DNR, especially if it has pronounced co-morbidities. The use of narcotic/sedative medication (versus physical "injury" to the fetus), is far more compassionate to alleviate struggling life.

The ultimate decision regarding this issue (besides it being a personal, confidential discussion between the patient [and legal associations] and her physician, is that the adult woman's risk of increased mortality be paramount in the decision. From my understanding, since I have no direct knowledge, 'late term abortion' is not about birthcontrol but preserving life AS WE KNOW IT, not as we predict it to be. The mother is present, the fetus is potential. By measure of rescuscitative means, should a fetus survive, with a reasonable POTENTIAL at descent quality of life, then the medical profession should intervene as they are trained to do. We need to be actually listening to those who have had this experience.

For example, this comes from JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/297/13/1412 with a broader article discussion at Firedoglake.com:
"…Over the next two days, the power of modern pharmaceuticals is unleashed in an attempt to quiet her uterus and save the twins. In reality, this attempt is focused on the twin who is fully contained in the uterus, since the one who is almost inside the vagina has no realistic chance of achieving viability. The efforts are valiant — these twins were conceived after 10 years of marriage — and the desire is strong to salvage as much of this pregnancy as possible….
Inducing labor before membranes have ruptured, or before there is a maternal indication such as infection, is technically an elective abortion. This hospital, like most hospitals in the metropolitan area in which they live, has a strict no-elective-abortion policy, which forbids her obstetricians from rupturing her membrances and initiating labor. Women who want elective abortions go to Planned Parenthood; the ones who want to deliver full-term babies go to hospitals; and so the woman andher husband are told they cannot exercise that option at this hospital. The two of them, recent transplants from California used to a less faith-based practice of medicine, are shocked by this. Nobody wants this pregnancy more than they, they argue. The sole reason they are doing this is because the risks outweigh the benefits. Does the hospital require emergence of a frank infection before intervention is permissible? Is this in keeping with the highest standards of practice in modern obstetrics? Her obstetricians are sympathetic but helpless. Finally, they come up with a plan. The sole hospital that does not have such an abortion policy is a university teaching hospital several miles away. Telephone calls are made, a direct admission is arranged, and the woman's husband drives her to the teaching hospital, where labor is induced. The twins are delivered the next day. They are stillborn.
You might wonder, reading this vignette, how I happen to know so many details about this case, or even whether this is a fictional teaching case that so bedevils medical students. The unfortunate truth is that this is real life: I am the husband in this story.
But the greater tragedy here, to my mind, is the straitjacket that a religious worldview imposes on the complexity inherent within clinical medicine. Our world sometimes presents us with situations that cannot be simplistically categorized as pro-choice or pro-life, and other patients across the nation will be faced with decisions like the ones we made on that fateful day.
This is why hospital policies that originate in religion rather than science can be unhealthy and unsafe. Personal religious beliefs can and should guide the lives of clinicians of faith. The extent to which they guide a clinician's professional life is the clinician's personal matter, and I hope that clinicians will choose specialties and practice settings that ensure that patients receive needed care regardless of the clinician's religious beliefs. However, the extent to which these beliefs guide hospital policy is a matter of concern to all of us, whether we are patients or clinicians. The extent to which the US medical establishment succeeds in circumscribing the circle of influence of religion-based medicine will determine the quality of health care that phsycians can offer their patients. Clearly, irrespective of what religion each of us belongs to, this is the very least that our patients deserve.". http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/18/consequences-2/#comments

The Supreme Court does NOT have sufficient qualifications to make a professional medical decision, and our competent, professional physicians should not be restricted in their practice to provide safe and competent medical care.

Addendum:

Another story to think about:

"One Woman's Late Term Abortion Story (a must read):
http://texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3116