Abortion

[LascielsShadow]

As I said, unaware of what the laws include but in cases of mother's life being in danger I promise you with a 100% certainty that doctors wont stand around and watch the mother die instead of performing an abortion, certain cases of pregnancy require abortion and regardless of what the abortion law states it cant be a death penalty.

Unless H.R. 358 was to become law. They wouldn't have to stabilise a woman presenting with immediate need for an emergency abortion. They wouldn't be obliged to refer or transfer her to another physician/facility that would be willing to perform the abortion. They'd essentially get to shrug, throw up their hands and go, "Oh well, sucks to be her, but I'm not doing it" and watch her die. That's the United States federal government giving doctors the green light to say that their beliefs are more important than the life of a woman in need of a life-saving medical procedure. It passed the house but won't pass the senate (and if it does, the president will veto it), but it's a bill that allows manslaughter in the name of "protecting life". I can promise *you* that if it were to become law, there would be women dying as a result. It's naive to think that there aren't at least a handful of doctors who would, if legally allowed, refuse to perform an abortion even if doing so would cause the death of the woman in need of it.

[The Evil Doer]

A "few cases" that were selected from larger issues in a country where women are supposed to have the freedom to make these decisions for themselves, and where medical professionals are expect to give required health care to patients. You said no doctor would stand back and do nothing when a woman's life was in danger. They already are. How much worse if not just the mandate of the church, but of the law, was against them?

 

Things happening in other countries are worth watching because they emphasize that these kind of these are allowed and do happen in the human condition. Which means we have to be aware of them, lest they happen to us.

A few cases are exceptions and exceptions happen everywhere, the mere fact that the article states its contreversial makes those cases exceptions, regardless of that I said that no doctor will stand and watch a woman die, in the articles you have posted I failed to see that....

Within the article was there a line claiming "doctor lets a pregnant woman die on his/her table because he/she wouldnt perform an abortion on her" ?

 

Things that happen in other countries.... Cartels run Mexico not the gov, have you ever been to Mexico ?

I visited once and that was one too many visits, saw a bunch of 40 yr olds making out with little girls, inquired about that and was explained that pedophiles go to Mexico so they can have sex with 10-12 yr old girls as that is perfectly legal.

The younger "your girl/boy" is, the more important you are considered to be by the locals... So... What Im saying is if we are going to start talking about "other countries" why not bring into the discussion Arab countries, African countries, China and a whole bunch of others where the local culture and values allow you to stone women to death, to punish gang-raped women and many other things which are in my eyes simply horrid but in their eyes considered moral...

As I have already stated moral in my eyes might be immoral in your eyes and vica versa....

 

@Lshadow

 

Unless H.R. 358 was to become law. They wouldn't have to stabilise a woman presenting with immediate need for an emergency abortion. They wouldn't be obliged to refer or transfer her to another physician/facility that would be willing to perform the abortion. They'd essentially get to shrug, throw up their hands and go, "Oh well, sucks to be her, but I'm not doing it" and watch her die. That's the United States federal government giving doctors the green light to say that their beliefs are more important than the life of a woman in need of a life-saving medical procedure. It passed the house but won't pass the senate (and if it does, the president will veto it), but it's a bill that allows manslaughter in the name of "protecting life". I can promise *you* that if it were to become law, there would be women dying as a result. It's naive to think that there aren't at least a handful of doctors who would, if legally allowed, refuse to perform an abortion even if doing so would cause the death of the woman in need of it.

 

There is a huge difference between having a green light and actually letting the woman die hence I claim again that if that ridiculous law ever becomes a reality I am 100% certain that no doctor will let a pregnant woman die on his table simply because the law allows him to.

The most basic principal of every doctor is to save a life, no doctor will stand and do nothing because they took an oath to do just that and because it would make zero sense to let a pregnant woman die, her dying would also kill the baby so there is nothing to gain.

Regardless of that, if the law is to become a reality it still wont change the basic law which is - a mother or a father have the right to decide whether to save the baby or the mother in case of a life risking procedure...

Either way you go about it, doctors will have to save the mother over a child even if it means doing the abortion...

[Kestra15]

1. Untill a child reaches the age of 16, his parents are the ones making the decisions including the ones that have an effect on his/her body, including surgeries, those surgeries might be - of health nature, of cosmetic nature or even of religious nature... All can be a pure preference of a parent and not a necessary procedure. (example - 8 yr old...)

Wrong - if a patient is under 16yrs and deemed to be competent enough to understand the implications of the procedure they wish to undertake, they can give consent themselves regardless of the parent's wishes. The parents don't even need to know.

 

c.f http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

[Lodrelhai]

I'm guessing you also missed the recently concluded trial of Michael Jackson's doctor, who was found guilty of criminal malpractice for his treatment, or lack thereof, of the pop singer.

 

The point we're making is that these things DO happen, even when they are criminal. Please, do look at some of those other countries - and then look at areas of our own. Missouri's got a school - a public school - that forced a girl to write a letter of apology to her rapist for accusing him, and then was raped by him AGAIN on school property. Fortunately this time she told her mother, who took her to get care. They got the evidence to prosecute, including a semen sample with matching DNA.

 

Another girl in New Hampshire was repeatedly raped and impregnated by a 30 year old man in her congregation. She had to stand in front of the church and apologize, and then was sent to live with a family in a sister church in Colorado. She had the baby there, and it was given up for adoption. Her pastor told her she was lucky she didn't live in Old Testament times, because she would've been stoned to death. I wonder if they would've waited until after the baby was born to carry out the sentence, so it would've been spared?

 

These were cases where the authorities who were supposed to help these girls instead blamed them and suppressed the story. How many haven't reached the light of day? How many other girls have fallen through the cracks, how many finally got justice but just didn't get a headline? Keep a close eye on those other countries - and remember that all of it can happen here without vigilant and vehement defense of our freedoms. Much of it HAS happened here in the past, and there are plenty of people who want it to happen here again. Those 40-year-olds making out with kids? Odds are most of them were from the U.S.

 

A woman's right to determine what happens to her body is hers. But because one the things that can happen to her body include the development of a second body within her, all of a sudden its not hers anymore? She's nothing more than an incubator? I'm sorry, but when a woman chooses to have an abortion, she is saying that the circumstances - whatever they might be - are unacceptable. If you insist that the fetus is a human life and so she has to carry it, you are saying that life outranks hers. If we have to decide one life is worth more than another, I'm going to side with the person who actually has a life.

[ShinyTomato]

I said that no doctor will stand and watch a woman die, in the articles you have posted I failed to see that....

Within the article was there a line claiming "doctor lets a pregnant woman die on his/her table because he/she wouldnt perform an abortion on her" ?

 

A Polish woman has died after being repeatedly refused medical treatment for her colon condition. The reason numerous doctors turned her away: they were worried she might miscarry.

 

Edyta was denied treatment for her disease – which was exacerbated by her pregnancy – by successive doctors, with each refusing to explain the real reason for their decision: “that treating the disease could result in a miscarriage or could force an abortion”.

 

Because Edyta was not informed of the grounds on which healthcare providers were refusing to help her, she did not have the opportunity to seek out a doctor whose morals coincided with her medical needs, resulting in her untimely death.

 

Pregnant woman dies after doctors refuse treatment

 

That's after two seconds of searching and ignoring the stuff about the new bill that would allow it. On a more scientific and American note...

 

A doctor can and will refuse to abort to save the life of the mother:

 

47% of puerperal maternal death is from doctors refusing to administer life-saving medical procedures which would prolong the mother's life but pose risk to the fetus. 74% of those cases are because of the doctor's morals and the "conscience clause." Of that number, 22% of those pregnancies were before the legal cutoff for abortion in the United States.

 

(Puerperal Death, Infant and Maternal, 2008, The Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Dr. Meredith Fresquez and Joan Christodoulou-Smith)

Edited November 9, 2011 by ShinyTomato

[Kestra15]

A Polish woman has died after being repeatedly refused medical treatment for her colon condition. The reason numerous doctors turned her away: they were worried she might miscarry.

 

Edyta was denied treatment for her disease – which was exacerbated by her pregnancy – by successive doctors, with each refusing to explain the real reason for their decision: “that treating the disease could result in a miscarriage or could force an abortion”.

 

Because Edyta was not informed of the grounds on which healthcare providers were refusing to help her, she did not have the opportunity to seek out a doctor whose morals coincided with her medical needs, resulting in her untimely death.

 

Pregnant woman dies after doctors refuse treatment

 

That's after two seconds of searching and ignoring the stuff about the new bill that would allow it. On a more scientific and American note...

 

A doctor can and will refuse to abort to save the life of the mother:

 

47% of puerperal maternal death is from doctors refusing to administer life-saving medical procedures which would prolong the mother's life but pose risk to the fetus. 74% of those cases are because of the doctor's morals and the "conscience clause." Of that number, 22% of those pregnancies were before the legal cutoff for abortion in the United States.

 

(Puerperal Death, Infant and Maternal, 2008, The Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Dr. Meredith Fresquez and Joan Christodoulou-Smith)

Interesting. In the UK, the life of the mother will take priority over the unborn child, unless it is expressly stated so by the mother.

[DarkLadyNyara]

As I said, unaware of what the laws include but in cases of mother's life being in danger I promise you with a 100% certainty that doctors wont stand around and watch the mother die instead of performing an abortion, certain cases of pregnancy require abortion and regardless of what the abortion law states it cant be a death penalty.

YES THEY WOULD. YES, THEY HAVE. This is NOT a hypothetical- this is something that actually happens.

 

Oh, and Re: laws infringing on bodily autonomy- they are the exception. Hence why, for example, you can't even use a persons corpse without prior consent. (And most of said are at least ostensibly justified by wider societal harm. I oppose many of them, but that's beside the point.)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2011 by DarkLadyNyara

[LascielsShadow]

@Lshadow

 

 

 

There is a huge difference between having a green light and actually letting the woman die hence I claim again that if that ridiculous law ever becomes a reality I am 100% certain that no doctor will let a pregnant woman die on his table simply because the law allows him to.

The most basic principal of every doctor is to save a life, no doctor will stand and do nothing because they took an oath to do just that and because it would make zero sense to let a pregnant woman die, her dying would also kill the baby so there is nothing to gain.

Regardless of that, if the law is to become a reality it still wont change the basic law which is - a mother or a father have the right to decide whether to save the baby or the mother in case of a life risking procedure...

Either way you go about it, doctors will have to save the mother over a child even if it means doing the abortion...

I would love to think that was true, that all doctors would keep to their oath and save the life of the mother over that of the fetus, but I don't have that much faith in humanity. Honestly, I agree with you. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (one way or another, you'd end up with a dead fetus), which is why I don't get the point of its existence.

Thing is, if they're of a certain moral bent, the fetus is the life that needs saving, and not aborting it *is* in keeping with their oath. What they'd gain, I think, is that they wouldn't be actively participating in ending a life. (The Hippocratic oath explicitly talks about not playing God.)

The problem is that yes, the parents have the right to decide to save the mother's life over the fetus's, but under this bill if the doctor flat-out said that they weren't doing it on principle, there'd be very little the person/couple could do aside from find another hospital quickly. The whole point of the bill here is that it would change the law, and no, they would not have to save the mother. Legally, they could sit back and do absolutely nothing if they wanted to. If the doctor involved felt that their oath was best fulfilled and their own morals best served by doing nothing, that's what they'd do.

 

 

 

The point we're making is that these things DO happen, even when they are criminal.  Please, do look at some of those other countries - and then look at areas of our own.  Missouri's got a school - a public school - that forced a girl to write a letter of apology to her rapist for accusing him, and then was raped by him AGAIN on school property.  Fortunately this time she told her mother, who took her to get care.  They got the evidence to prosecute, including a semen sample with matching DNA.

And then the school suspended her for disrespectful conduct and public display of affection-after the boy pled guilty.

 

Also, yeah, this is something that actually happens. It doesn't matter how rare they are or are not-they happen, and they happen in countries like the US, which are supposedly above such things. No-one may want to admit that someone was allowed to die for fear of the life-saving procedure or drug inducing a miscarriage/abortion, but it happens.

[The Evil Doer]

@Lodrelhai

The fact that bad things happen is reality, dont see how is that relevant to abortion or what we discussed at all though ??

 

@Kestra

I was talking about the laws in the states not UK.... Agree though that many countries have a different set of laws...

 

@ShinyTomato

Poor woman , however its a failure of a Polish health system which is hardly on the same level as one existing in so called "western countries"

Regarding your numbers about puerperal maternal deaths, I just googled that one too, as it seems 90% of those occur in third world countries, in countries such as USA, western Europe and Australia the numbers of puerperal mortality is aprox 15/100000 births which is 0.01% and nope those 0.01% usually arent caused by doctors refusing treatment, Im not claiming such tragedies are impossible to happen because after all the world we live in is far from perfect but if they do happen in a western country expect the doctor to pay....

Edited November 9, 2011 by The Evil Doer

[ShinyTomato]

@Lodrelhai

The fact that bad things happen is reality, dont see how is that relevant to abortion or what we discussed at all though ?? 

 

@Kestra

I was talking about the laws in the states not UK.... Agree though that many countries have a different set of laws...

 

@ShinyTomato

Poor woman  , however its a failure of a Polish health system which is hardly on the same level as one existing in so called "western countries"

Regarding your numbers about puerperal maternal deaths, I just googled that one too, as it seems 90% of those occur in third world countries, in countries such as USA, western Europe and Australia the numbers of puerperal mortality is aprox 15/100000 births which is 0.01% and nope those 0.01% usually arent caused by doctors refusing treatment, Im not claiming such tragedies are impossible to happen because after all the world we live in is far from perfect but if they do happen in a western country expect the doctor to pay....

Sorry to say Evil Doer, but the study I posted was the US only. Not third world countries. And our health care system is classed third-world, after Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Edited November 9, 2011 by ShinyTomato

[The Evil Doer]

I would love to think that was true, that all doctors would keep to their oath and save the life of the mother over that of the fetus, but I don't have that much faith in humanity. Honestly, I agree with you. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (one way or another, you'd end up with a dead fetus), which is why I don't get the point of its existence.

Thing is, if they're of a certain moral bent, the fetus is the life that needs saving, and not aborting it *is* in keeping with their oath. What they'd gain, I think, is that they wouldn't be actively participating in ending a life. (The Hippocratic oath explicitly talks about not playing God.)

The problem is that yes, the parents have the right to decide to save the mother's life over the fetus's, but under this bill if the doctor flat-out said that they weren't doing it on principle, there'd be very little the person/couple could do aside from find another hospital quickly. The whole point of the bill here is that it would change the law, and no, they would not have to save the mother. Legally, they could sit back and do absolutely nothing if they wanted to. If the doctor involved felt that their oath was best fulfilled and their own morals best served by doing nothing, that's what they'd do.

Im not aware of exactly what the law is supposed to change but if what you say is true and doctor indeed has the right to refuse treatment even though the husband requested so and even though it will result in mother's death...

Well, if the new law changes that, it will be a huge change in the basics of medical laws and I just dont see how can that be possible, if that is allowed then doctors can refuse to treat pretty much anything else... Just dont see that becoming a reality, seriously doubt that it is indeed a part of an abortion law... But as I said Im unfamiliar with it...

[ShinyTomato]

Im not aware of exactly what the law is supposed to change but if what you say is true and doctor indeed has the right to refuse treatment even though the husband requested so and even though it will result in mother's death...

Well, if the new law changes that, it will be a huge change in the basics of medical laws and I just dont see how can that be possible, if that is allowed then doctors can refuse to treat pretty much anything else... Just dont see that becoming a reality, seriously doubt that it is indeed a part of an abortion law... But as I said Im unfamiliar with it...

The Protect Life Act, HR 358, would amend the healthcare reform law to grant hospitals far-reaching powers to deny patients abortion care, without any exception for emergency situations. US law currently requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide emergency care to anyone in need up to the point at which they can be stabilized or transferred, if the original hospital is incapable of providing the care they need.

[The Evil Doer]

Just went and read that part of the bill... this is a copy paste of what's written there

 

LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING

 

IN GENERAL - No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except—

 

‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;

or

‘‘(2) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

 

Emm... Thats kind of what I said that I dont see happening, which is doctors standing and watching the mom die....

 

 

Edit - this would be the page with the bill in case you want to read it

The Bill....

Edited November 9, 2011 by The Evil Doer

[ShinyTomato]

Just went and read that part of the bill... this is a copy paste of what's written there

 

LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING

 

IN GENERAL - No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except—

 

‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest;

or

‘‘(2) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

 

Emm... Thats kind of what I said that I dont see happening, which is doctors standing and watching the mom die....

You need to read further in the bill and go back and re-read the study I posted.

 

We're talking about G the "Non-discrimination" not.

[The Evil Doer]

You need to read further in the bill and go back and re-read the study I posted.

 

We're talking about G the "Non-discrimination" not.

Where is the study you have posted ?

 

What is a G the "Non-discrimination" not ?

[LascielsShadow]

Where is the study you have posted ?

 

What is a G the "Non-discrimination" not ? 

The relevant portion of the bill, which you seem to have missed.

 

(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-

 

`(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--

 

`(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

 

`(B require or provide such training;

 

`( C perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

 

`(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.

 

(ninja'd by shinytomato, but I'll leave this anyway.)

Edited November 9, 2011 by LascielsShadow

[ShinyTomato]

Where is the study you have posted ?

 

What is a G the "Non-discrimination" not ?

`(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--

`(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

`( require or provide such training;

`© perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

`(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.

 

 

 

And the study I posted and cited that you dismissed for your google-Fu about Maternal death in the US.

[The Evil Doer]

`(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--

`(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

`( require or provide such training;

`© perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

`(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.

 

 

 

And the study I posted and cited that you dismissed for your google-Fu about Maternal death in the US.

Hmm... that's troubling...

Cant say I fully understand whether it gives them the right to go and refuse to treat a pregnant woman who is dying in their hospital though, doesnt seem like it does say so

 

Do you have a link to that study ? Its interesting stuff, wouldnt mind reading it...

 

BTW, everything I have written is indeed true regarding the maternal deaths in the US, 15/100.000 is the right number for the states, far from being a good number and a less tragical one but still less than 0.01%.....

[LascielsShadow]

Hmm... that's troubling...

Cant say I fully understand whether it gives them the right to go and refuse to treat a pregnant woman who is dying in their hospital though, doesnt seem like it does say so 

 

Do you have a link to that study ? Its interesting stuff, wouldnt mind reading it...

 

BTW, everything I have written is indeed true regarding the maternal deaths in the US, 15/100.000 is the right number for the states, far from being a good number and a less tragical one but still less than 0.01%.....

Doesn't say they can't, either. There's no exception there for a life and death situation. It simply says "induced abortions". There is no language in that section differentiating an abortion which is medically necessary to save the life of the woman receiving it and one which is not.

Edited November 9, 2011 by LascielsShadow

[ShinyTomato]

Hmm... that's troubling...

Cant say I fully understand whether it gives them the right to go and refuse to treat a pregnant woman who is dying in their hospital though, doesnt seem like it does say so 

 

Do you have a link to that study ? Its interesting stuff, wouldnt mind reading it...

 

BTW, everything I have written is indeed true regarding the maternal deaths in the US, 15/100.000 is the right number for the states, far from being a good number and a less tragical one but still less than 0.01%.....

 

It says they cannot be tried or held responsible for not performing or referring an abortion.

 

 

Actually, it's not. It's a deflated number, ignoring malpractice, perimortem and complications of surgery -- ie only infections. And no, I don't do links to internet studies. It's a work rule.

Edited November 9, 2011 by ShinyTomato

[lightbird]

However its a failure of a Polish health system which is hardly on the same level as one existing in so called "western countries"

And how much do you actually know about health care system in Eastern Europe? You know, we're not really third would countries. :T

 

The way I see it, the tragedy happened because Poland is a largely Catholic country, one where women sometimes go abroad to nearby countries just to have an abortion. Had that problem happened in one clinic in the other countries of the region (say, one of the Baltic countries, where I'm from), she most likely would have been able to find a doctor that would administer the treatment.

 

I'm not implying that everything in the local health care system is sparkly and wonderful, like it's supposedly in the West :T, but that case is by no means representative of the local health care system quality per se.

Edited November 9, 2011 by lightbird

[The Evil Doer]

Doesn't say they can't, either. There's no exception there for a life and death situation. It simply says "induced abortions". There is no language in that section differentiating an abortion which is medically necessary to save the life of the woman receiving it and one which is not.

Indeed it doesnt say but I still think that the hospital will get into trouble if a dying pregnant girl arrives and they simply kick her out to die....

 

@ShinyTomato

Indeed it says that they can choose not to perform an abortion but it is vague and I dont think it includes life or death cases.

You dont do links to studies ? Is it not open to public ? Because it is a study which should be opened to public, the whole point of it should be creating awareness, secrecy on that topic is almost as ridiculous as the law against abortion

 

@lightbird

It wasnt meant as an insult, the truth is that in eastern Europe technology and bureaucracy work really slow, for example, I injured my knee in the states, within few days I had an MRI done on it, do you know how long will it take to get an MRI done in Poland ? Aprox 3-12 months, unless you are connected

By no means does it mean that Poland is a bad place to live in (nor that its a third world country, far from it) nor that the health system in the states is a good one, matter of fact, it is a horrid one, and many Europeans countries have a way better system, one that actually cares about the people....

Edited November 9, 2011 by The Evil Doer

[lightbird]

@lightbird

It wasnt meant as an insult, the truth is that in eastern Europe technology and bureaucracy work really slow, for example, I injured my knee in the states, within few days I had an MRI done on it, do you know how long will it take to get an MRI done in Poland ? Aprox 3-12 months, unless you are connected 

By no means does it mean that Poland is a bad place to live in (nor that its a third world country, far from it) nor that the health system in the states is a good one, matter of fact, it is a horrid one, and many Europeans countries have a way better system, one that actually cares about the people....

I don't know about Poland, but the reality in my country wouldn't be that things wouldn't necessarily be slow, but because that MRI is too expensive for most people (since it's not covered by the government, as many other things), hence why there aren't many places where you can get an MRI to begin, so other methods would usually be used to assess the severity of a knee trauma, and a lot of things that form a difference between the local and the western health care system all boil down to having much more limited financial funds to go off.

 

But I think you'd recognise that this discussion is not relevant to the topic of the life of the mother over that of a fetus and I poked about that because you come off as stereotypical about this, as well as about many other topics that have been covered in this thread...

Edited November 9, 2011 by lightbird

[The Evil Doer]

I don't know about Poland, but the reality in my country wouldn't be that things wouldn't necessarily be slow, but because that MRI is too expensive for most people (since it's not covered by the government, as many other things), hence why there aren't many places where you can get an MRI to begin, so other methods would usually be used to assess the severity of a knee trauma, and a lot of things that form a difference between the local and the western health care system all boil down to having much more limited financial funds to go off.

 

But I think you'd recognise that this discussion is not relevant to the topic of the life of the mother over that of a fetus and I poked about that because you come off as stereotypical about this, as well as about many other topics that have been covered in this thread...

I never claimed anything about mother over fetus but I am intrigued

Stereotypical about which topics ? Preach

[lightbird]

Stereotypical about which topics ? Preach

Beginning with the most recent, about how no doctor would stand and watch a woman die instead of risking the life of a fetus, for example.

 

I'm not here to argue about that, but to just point out that you do post a lot of what seem like ignorant assumptions (that so-and-so-countries are like this or that, that something that is an "exception" doesn't happen around you etc, that because something happens in relatively low numbers, it's not tragic anymore etc.), and you might notice that yourself from the reactions of others to your posts, that is all. :u

Edited November 9, 2011 by lightbird