U.S. - Injecting Drugs Can Ruin a Heart. How Many Second Chances Should a User Get?

[cduggles]

^ It's about practicality, not some hypothetical idea.

There were four OBs/obstetric surgeons who openly performed the procedures (third trimester D&X and D&E) a couple of years ago. In the US.

Most gynecologists don't even do normal OB anymore because they get sued too frequently, which has given rise to birthing centers and increased induction of labor/Caesarean sections so they can be scheduled in advance. Some states have v few places a mother can give birth in a setting with modern, specialized equipment and experienced doctors. The whole OB training part isn't just a scam the medical field worked out. When it's important, it's really important.

So if a mother is carrying a fetus baby with a rapidly lethal, horrible genetic defect like anencephaly, can that baby be killed? Or does the mother need to go through the medically risky process of birth to have a baby that is dead or will be soon because it doesn't have a brain and freaks everyone out? For late-term, or "partial birth abortions" (a man had to make up that term), these "exceptions" are far more the norm, but subtlety seems to be lost on some.

The following is why a late-term abortion is medically almost the same as removing a dead third-trimester fetus:

There are a few procedures depending on the situation, but dilation and extraction or dilation and evacuation are the common ones used. I wrote a long, graphic description, but it's probably not appropriate. And it's way off-topic.

For a live fetus, an injection is given that kills it but not the mother (the umbilical cord connects the circulatory systems for gas exchange, although they are separate for the most part.)

It's killed by injection so the surgeons can make incisions (cut it up) without movement by the fetus.

That injection is the only difference between a live and a dead fetus, btw, and the rest of the procedure. So it's basically the same procedure.

It's not like taking out an appendix, which is still hard in some cases.

On-topic: if the addiction as disease model is accepted, then care should be provided by medical insurers. If addiction is viewed as a lack of willpower, then it's more likely to be considered elective.

Another way of looking at this is with cancer patients. It's much better to be a rich cancer patient than a poor one. Extreme life-saving measures that have a higher risk-to-benefit ratio are available.

I think the operation should be done, personally, but that follow-up and rehab is necessary. And a good course in harm reduction!

 

[nuttynutskin]

So if a mother is carrying a fetus baby with a rapidly lethal, horrible genetic defect like anencephaly, can that baby be killed? Or does the mother need to go through the medically risky process of birth to have a baby that is dead or will be soon because it doesn't have a brain and freaks everyone out? For late-term, or "partial birth abortions" (a man had to make up that term), these "exceptions" are far more the norm, but subtlety seems to be lost on some.

The mother is going to have to have it delivered whether it's dead or not so I see no reason why it needs to be killed first, or how it being delivered alive is any riskier. Furthermore, these "medical" reasons for abortion are anything but the norm and account for 1% or less of all abortions done if memory servers me right.

The following is why a late-term abortion is medically almost the same as removing a dead third-trimester fetus:

Keyword ALMOST. There's a difference in aborting the fetus, or if it's delivered and unfortunately dies of natural causes.

That injection is the only difference between a live and a dead fetus, btw, and the rest of the procedure. So it's basically the same procedure.

So it's different but basically the same?

 

[JessFR]

Even 1% isn't that rare. People talk about 1% as if it's a super low probability, but 1 in 100? If you could have a billion dollars (or something else you really want) but there's a 1% chance you'll instead be tortured slowly to death, would you take those odds? I wouldn't.

How about 0.5%, 1 in 200? I still wouldn't. You'd have to get into the 1 in 1000+ range before I'd risk it.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Well whatever it is I still stand by my position. There's no need medically for abortion. Some things may have to be done for the mother's life which unfortunately results in the fetus dying, but it seems people are too stupid to see the difference. And whatever the percentage is regarding abortions, the overwhelming majority of them are done because of inconvenience.

 

[JessFR]

But how is that relevant? Like, I honestly don't see what's even being argued over here.

I mean, is anyone here arguing that doctors shouldn't be able to terminate, abort, remove, whatever you'd like to call it, a pregnancy where the fetus is already dead or will very soon and has no chance of a life? Cause if not, I don't see what there is to argue about.

What difference does it make if you abort the fetus if it's going to die soon as it's born anyway? I mean, forget how medically different the procedure is or isn't. I don't see how it's morally different. So I don't see what there is to argue about.

And medically, I suppose you can argue about how different it is or isn't, but I can't see any reason anyone would want to. I don't see how it matters.

 

[nuttynutskin]

One the doctor's killing the fetus, the other the fetus is delivered and unfortunately dies of natural causes basically.

 

[JessFR]

One the doctor's killing the fetus, the other the fetus is delivered and unfortunately dies of natural causes basically.

But why is that different if the fetus is gonna die either way? If the fetus is going to die shortly after birth, and the mothers risks can be reduced by aborting the pregnancy before that happens, why wouldn't you?

You know I hail from the pro life side, but on this one I really don't see a problem. It would be different if there's a chance the fetus could survive, but in this hypothetical that's not the case.

I just don't see why it's morally different. It strikes me as a little like the assisted suicide debate. For which I feel largely the same way. If the outcome is the same, and the time frames involved aren't significantly different, then it all comes down to making the inevitable as painless as possible.

I can understand why the doctor could have moral problems with killing the fetus even though it's going to die. I think it's irrational, but I can empathize with it. I'd find it troubling too. But in terms of the overall morality, outside of the perspective of one individuals role in it, I just don't see a problem.

 

[nuttynutskin]

I already explained my stance, and so far I've yet to see anyone explain how it'd be less risk for the mother to deliver a fetus that's dead vs a fetus that's alive.

As far as doctor assisted suicide, I think that's a bit different because the person is choosing that. The fetus, baby or whatever you want to call it isn't.

 

[JessFR]

I already explained my stance, and so far I've yet to see anyone explain how it'd be less risk for the mother to deliver a fetus that's dead vs a fetus that's alive.

As far as doctor assisted suicide, I think that's a bit different because the person is choosing that. The fetus, baby or whatever you want to call it isn't.

Even if it's not less risk, I still don't see why it really matters. I can see that emotionally it might be hard for a pro life doctor to be the one to kill the fetus, but it's irrational. I can empathize but it's still irrational since the fetus isnt gonna make it regardless. It's still the case that the fetus is as good as dead anyway. I just don't see why it matters.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Well I we're gonna have to agree to disagree then.

 

[JessFR]

Honestly I'm not sure what the disagreement is. Presumably that you think it's morally wrong to kill the fetus before it dies naturally even if that natural death is inevitable and imminent. What I don't get though is the logic behind that. Why you feel it's an important difference.

 

[nuttynutskin]

It's just my opinion based on my own morals that the dr shouldn't be the one deciding the fetus's fate. Plenty of people obviously disagree with that.

 

[JessFR]

See to me the doctor isn't deciding the fetus's fate. It's already decided. I don't see changing the way you get to the same outcome as making an important difference.

 

[cduggles]

The mother is going to have to have it delivered whethe r it's dead or not so I see no reason why it needs to be killed first, or how it being delivered alive is any riskier. Furthermore, these "medical" reasons for abortion are anything but the norm and account for 1% or less of all abortions done if memory servers me right.

So let's just ignore rare? Plus it's the whole Trumpian "ripping the baby out of the womb" bs that pro-life relishes. I never stated it was a norm. However, for late stage abortion, miscarriages and nonviable genetic defect are much more the norm. I didn't choose the rhetoric.

JessFR, I read that you understand that a viability of hours is sufficient cause for the procedure. I read your whole post.

So nuttynutskin,
obviously this isn't something you care about, but choosing to have a nonviable baby or not are both incredibly emotionally traumatic. (Just look at images of anencephaly, maybe it would help. The maximum life expectancy is measured in days, usually hours. Looks like it's probably not a great experience.)

In the real world, the birth and care of a baby that will live hours to days, sometimes in extreme discomfort or pain (but who cares? Pro-life!) once outside the womb are a lot more expensive than late term abortion and are considered more care-intensive than normal birth (that also means more expensive). Hope those proud parents were saving up for those special few hours!

And, no offense, but you need to acquire an understanding of maternal mortality. Birth is one of the most life-threatening experiences women go through without high-tech, highly skilled first world care. It's why women don't deliver in a taxi if it can be avoided.

Keyword ALMOST. There's a difference in aborting the fetus, or if it's delivered and unfortunately dies of natural causes.

So it's different but basically the same?

Medically, one injection is the difference. You really need to look at these procedures if you actually want to understand the issue. Successful placental separation and vascular separation are two of a number of aspects that make this not like treating a simple infection. It's actually complicated.

So while it's a complex procedure, even I have the technical skill to administer an injection to stop a fetal heart. Very few individuals have the expertise to perform a D&E or D&E, especially if there are complications.

So yes medically speaking, the difference in the procedures with a dead or alive fetus at the beginning is absolutely trivial.

Ethically, it seems to be a huge thing for you.

I believe it's a private decision and people who aren't involved need to respect whatever the parents choose regarding a baby with multiple genetic defects.

And yes, I have met a couple who decided to have their baby for a few awful hours and that's their decision. I respect it.

But I also respect people who don't want to go through that pain. They go through other pain instead if that helps.

 

[nuttynutskin]

See to me the doctor isn't deciding the fetus's fate. It's already decided. I don't see changing the way you get to the same outcome as making an important difference.

How do you draw the line then? Some babies are born that the doctors are certain won't survive, yet they do. As I basically said already, I don't think it's the doctor's roll to play god, or whatever you want to call it.

 

[JessFR]

How do you draw the line then? Some babies are born that the doctors are certain won't survive, yet they do. As I basically said already, I don't think it's the doctor's roll to play god, or whatever you want to call it.

No, a lot of the time people imagine their doctor was wrong. I mean yeah, sometimes doctors are wrong, but most of the time, they're told "your baby is unlikely to survive", then when it does they remember being told there was no chance so it's a miracle!

Or like someone's brain dead and the family hears "they're in a coma and people wake up from comas all the time". Or they're told they're unlikely to survive 6 months after being diagnosed with cancer, then of they beat it they remember "my doctor said I only had 6 months".

People hear the version they wanna hear, and remember the version they wanna remember. Not always but it's not uncommon.

Some situations are medically unresovable. Not low chance, no chance. And that's the subject of this hypothetical. Where is the line when it really is low chance? Dunno, but that's not the hypothetical.

Ultimately it's the patients choice, if a child is brain dead, should the parent be allowed to elect to discontinue life support? I think so. And I don't see how this situation is really any different.

Parent, child, child's not gonna survive, parent gets to decide how to handle it.

And patients have a right to refuse treatment, so I don't see how it's the doctor making the choice anyway.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Well I don't really see this going anywhere. I have my beliefs other people have theirs. Oh, and cduggles I'm not a Trump supporter. My beliefs on this matter are from my own ethical standpoint and have nothing to do with politics. But thanks for more or less insinuating that.

 

[motiv311]

I've have a lot of friends who say you shouldn't heat up meth before a shot, like you do with everything else.... I think thats what she probably did, you should always heat it up to a boil in order to kill bacteria that could be in the meth.... I think shooting meth is just too damn risky anyways.

 

[JessFR]

I've have a lot of friends who say you shouldn't heat up meth before a shot, like you do with everything else.... I think thats what she probably did, you should always heat it up to a boil in order to kill bacteria that could be in the meth.... I think shooting meth is just too damn risky anyways.

I've never heated anything to actually boiling point, never seen anyone else do that either. Now granted I'm largely a heroin person, but I'd do the same thing with meth.

Well I don't really see this going anywhere. I have my beliefs other people have theirs. Oh, and cduggles I'm not a Trump supporter. My beliefs on this matter are from my own ethical standpoint and have nothing to do with politics. But thanks for more or less insinuating that.

Fair enough. I can't say I get it but I guess I'm not gonna.

 

[cduggles]

Well whatever it is I still stand by my position. There's no need medically for abortion.

You don't seem to acknowledge certain things, such as the v basic, well-established fact that there are high health risks to a woman associated with carrying a baby to term and giving birth. Apparently the concept that a complicated medical procedure can be technically identical to another one aside from a simple injection is also somehow problematic.

Some things may have to be done for the mother's life which unfortunately results in the fetus dying, but it seems people are too stupid to see the difference. And whatever the percentage is regarding abortions, the overwhelming majority of them are done because of inconvenience.

I'm probably too stupid to understand your point. However, I'm not sure you're well versed in basic modern reproductive health or the developmental biology and genetic issues involved here. Or the medical sociology of abortion.

You seem to just know what you think, and that the reason you think it is because that's what you think.

Well I don't really see this going anywhere. I have my beliefs other people have theirs. Oh, and cduggles I'm not a Trump supporter. My beliefs on this matter are from my own ethical standpoint and have nothing to do with politics. But thanks for more or less insinuating that.

It's obviously not going anywhere in the sense of changing our stances, agreed.

The way I organized my post was to quote Trump in a presidential debate misrepresenting late term abortion. He was simply regurgitating ignorant rhetoric. And I was quoting it as an example of the fringe pro-life ideology. It was relevant to the fact that yes we're talking about less than 1% of all abortions, which is something you knew, but it's a huge plank in the rabid pro-life platform, not the whole platform.

Please consider the things I wrote after your username as being addressed moreso to you. I didn't mean to insinuate in any way that you held any particular political beliefs. I don't even think Trump is pro-life.

So again, it was a widely reported Trump quote that exemplified whack job level pro-life ideology that misrepresents late term abortion. It was not at all intended to be an insinuation of any type of political support on anyone's part, including yours.