Planned Parenthood doctor accused of doing forced abortion

[Grave_n_idle]

Which, even if true, wouldn't actually prove anything about this topic, would it?

The best you might be able to do, is argue that the pro-choice argument is false because of the people that would make it.

I'll let you look it up for yourself which fallacy that is.

It highlights people's response to it and different issues.

Which does what for the topic, exactly?

It's either off-topic, or it's a logical fallacy - either way, it's irrelevant.

[Norstal]

It's a threadjack because it has nothing to do with the case. You're trying to point out inconsistency on NSG responses. You're saying that it's different. Do you know why? Well, maybe like Blouman said, we're actually analyzing this because it's a different case.

So really, why can't we analyze this differently than the other case? Cause that case isn't the same as this one.

That doesn't make any sense. In both cases, we only have an unproven allegation. In the Savita case, the allegation was treated as fact, while in this case, it was treated as an allegation. This is inconsistent behaviour suggesting a pro-choice bias.

Not really. If you just bothered to read the first page, most people assumed it's proven. But more than that, in the Savita case, we can see that someone died because the doctors were compelled to follow a law to perform their job regardless of what the doctor did or did not do to save her. In this case, the doctor specifically didn't follow the law or procedure. Which one do you think we can blame system and which one do you think is the case where we can only blame the doctor?

So of course we have to blame the entire system in the Irish case because the system ultimately influenced the doctor's decisions and job. We can't in this one because there's nobody to blame BUT the doctor.

[Ygganda]

If the allegations turn out to be true, the doctor would be identified, hopefully they keep a record of who is doing what abortion.

Oops, I problem should have mentioned that. But if it is found that she sustained malpractice of this sort, I stand by what I said.

Malpractice of which sort?

There's no evidence of malpractice, yet. There's not even a specific doctor that the complaint is leveled against, yet.

To be honest, I'm finding it hard to corroborate the complain, which only turns up so far on the ADF site - but even in that complaint, there's no proof of malpractice.

I'm just saying that of the claims are proven, that is the course which shojld be taken. I'm not saying that there is any evidence one way or the other, just what should be done if there is evidence to prove her case. I never said a word about the legitimacy of the claim.

[Norstal]

I stopped viewing this as anything other than you using a tragic and unpleasant case of medical neglect and incompetence to illustrate why you believe women don't have the right to decide what goes on in their own bodies when you used the phrase "war on the unborn".

Its shameful isn't it?

Totally expected from the anti-choicers, but shameful none the less.

I'm not really surprised or angry anymore. I'm just tired. Tired of right-wingers and Libertarians for not even attempting an effort to discuss the issue. Look at this 2 pages long tirade on liberal mentality. They don't even care for the issue anymore. They only care in shaming their opponents and I'm fucking tired of it.

[Maurepas]

It's not really a "forced abortion", she came to the clinic wanting an abortion, she just wanted anesthesia.

The clinic failed to administer it, as well as botching the procedure. This is a medical malpractice issue, and the clinic should be sued.

Has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood as an organization, nor does it have anything to do with the abortion issue.

Carnival Cruise had a botched cruise recently, that doesn't mean Carnival Cruise is attempting to purposefully strand people in the middle of the water, or that the people getting on their ships are forced to be there or anything.

[Frisbeeteria]

You're such a fucktard. Seriously. You're a retarded ideologue who is too busy jerking Jesus off to notice everyone else thinks he's a brainwashed shit head. You don't use sources because there aren't any valid sources to back your argument. Your ONLY argument is that a fictitious book says abortion is wrong. Guess what? Abortion isn't murder because fetuses AREN'T PEOPLE. Get that through your Jesus-cum-soaked head, will you? Fuck off and stop polluting NS with your bible-thumping faggotry, please.

In spite of a relatively clean recent record, that's just over the top flaming. As such, bypassing the normal warnings and going straight to a

*** 24 hour ban for flaming. ***

[Blouman Empire]

It highlights people's response to it and different issues.

Which does what for the topic, exactly?

It's either off-topic, or it's a logical fallacy - either way, it's irrelevant.

It is common practice to show posters inconsistent viewpoints on NSG, you and others only don't like it because for some reason you think it is disproving the arguments for the doctor or PP which it isn't at all.

And pointing out people's inconsistent viewpoints or irrational arguments should be included in any debate.

[Grave_n_idle]

Malpractice of which sort?

There's no evidence of malpractice, yet. There's not even a specific doctor that the complaint is leveled against, yet.

To be honest, I'm finding it hard to corroborate the complain, which only turns up so far on the ADF site - but even in that complaint, there's no proof of malpractice.

I'm just saying that of the claims are proven, that is the course which shojld be taken. I'm not saying that there is any evidence one way or the other, just what should be done if there is evidence to prove her case. I never said a word about the legitimacy of the claim.

No, what you actually said, was:

"I think that the clinic should be temporarily shut down for an investigation. If their hiring standards allowed such a bad doctor to be hired, it should be determined whether or not there are other health issues."

You assumed there was wrong-doing, and that there was a 'bad doctor'. You said that the clinic should be shut down for an investigation.

[Grave_n_idle]

Which does what for the topic, exactly?

It's either off-topic, or it's a logical fallacy - either way, it's irrelevant.

It is common practice to show posters inconsistent viewpoints on NSG, you and others only don't like it because for some reason you think it is disproving the arguments for the doctor or PP which it isn't at all.

I haven't expressed any 'like', either way. I've just pointed out that it's off-topic, and probably an ad hominem fallacy.

[Blouman Empire]

It is common practice to show posters inconsistent viewpoints on NSG, you and others only don't like it because for some reason you think it is disproving the arguments for the doctor or PP which it isn't at all.

I haven't expressed any 'like', either way. I've just pointed out that it's off-topic, and probably an ad hominem fallacy.

Pointing out someone's inconsistency is not ad himinem, as for beig off-topic it may be but as I've said it's common practice on NSG.

[Gravlen]

It's not really a "forced abortion", she came to the clinic wanting an abortion, she just wanted anesthesia.

The clinic failed to administer it, as well as botching the procedure.

Did they, though?

[Radiatia]

I love how the OP doesn't seem to give a shit about the fact that the woman, who wanted an abortion, was allegedly the victim of medical malpractice and that instead he somehow he frames this as a "war on the unborn child" which is actually not what the story is about.

NSG never fails to make to make me laugh.

[Ifreann]

Nonsense. Shut down everything where any wrong may have been done!

But if we shut down NSG where will I get my jollies from?

Jesus, I guess.

[Maurepas]

It's not really a "forced abortion", she came to the clinic wanting an abortion, she just wanted anesthesia.

The clinic failed to administer it, as well as botching the procedure.

Did they, though?

Well, I only had the article to go on, so, yeah. It is a fox news piece, probably grain of salt and all that.

But, assuming that what the article said is true, then yeah. But, yeah, big assumption on that part.

[Snafturi]

Alleged, alleged, alleged.

Lets wait for the court, huh?

I find this funny, given that in the case of Savita Halappanavar, everybody (including those on NSG) automatically assumed the worst, that Irish doctors knowingly deprived a woman of lifesaving medical treatment because of their religious fundamentalism, even though we were only relying on the word of an emotionally distraught husband looking for someone to blame for his wife's death.

The reality is that the Irish Medical Association has stated that it is both proper and necessary to give a woman lifesaving medical treatment, even if it results in the death of her unborn child. However, doctors are required to attempt to save the child's life as well, which is why "life-saving abortions" are not allowed, since the object of that procedure is not to save the mother's life, but to kill the child.

(For what it's worth, the name "life-saving abortion" is a misnomer; it is appropriate medical treatment, not abortion, which will cure the mother.)

Actually, I'm basing my opinion that something is profoundly fishy with this case not only on the fact that she apparently can't do better than a laywer who doesn't seem to know how to write a proper complaint, but that the facts laid out in this case don't add up.

While the complaint itself only alleges she was promised "IV anesthetic" (which is quite vague), we can safely assume there is no way she was offered general. Not only is that not standard practice for an EVA and it's highly unlikely PPH even had the facilities and staff, using general for a five minute procedure might actually fall under malpractice unless there were extraordinary reasons for it. I'd even question that she'd have been promised procedural sedation. You can't just give that to someone who doesn't have a ride home and it would have been negligent of them to even offer it. While it doesn't explicitly say so, it sounds from the complaint like she was there alone.

There's no reason to disbelieve that the doctor was too far into the procedure to stop. She and her lawyer are claiming that it wasn't too far into the procedure just because the vacuum pump hadn't been turned on. An EVA doesn't start with vacuuming, it starts with cervical dilation (most likely with sounds) and insertion of the cannula. While there's a lack of studies on the absolute cut off for an EVA for obvious reasons, it's a good medical decision to decide that an abortion cannot be stopped after this has been done. Given that insertion of the sounds can be painful (not unreasonably, I should mention) even with local, it's safe to assume this had been done given that she does mention in the complaint she'd began crying from the pain.

Infection and the need for reaspiration is a common side effect (2% according to the study below), so again, not really a problem with how the procedure was done.

The average follow up for an EVA is between 1 and 3 weeks. She had to go to the hospital two days later, well before the earliest time she'd have been back to PPH. Incidentally, the lack of follow ups is thanks to the funding cuts instigated by the pro life crowd.

Finally, the fact that this is civil and not criminal matter, and looking at the acts of liability in the complaint versus what they should be, based on the facts presented makes me question the validity of the claim.

http://www.arhp.org/uploadDocs/mvaqrg.pdf

[Blouman Empire]

I love how the OP doesn't seem to give a shit about the fact that the woman, who wanted an abortion, was allegedly the victim of medical malpractice and that instead he somehow he frames this as a "war on the unborn child" which is actually not what the story is about.

NSG never fails to make to make me laugh.

Some people will use anything to further their agenda.

[Gravlen]

But if we shut down NSG where will I get my jollies from?

Jesus, I guess.

Or Santa...

[Auralia]

Which does what for the topic, exactly?

It's either off-topic, or it's a logical fallacy - either way, it's irrelevant.

It is common practice to show posters inconsistent viewpoints on NSG, you and others only don't like it because for some reason you think it is disproving the arguments for the doctor or PP which it isn't at all.

And pointing out people's inconsistent viewpoints or irrational arguments should be included in any debate.

This.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

Ahhh, CD is attempting to appeal the modedit of the title. So that's why he hasn't posted yet.

Planned Parenthood is being accused of performing a forced abortion. Read the complaint.

CD, before you go charging further down the road about "TitleGate 2013," a quick Google search finds that even Pro-Life groups are referring to this as an "botched abortion" case. That includes LifeNews.com: "Planned Parenthood Botched Abortion, Left Part of Baby Inside Woman". See also Woman Sues Over Abortion Nightmare - WorldNetDaily.

[YellowApple]

<KatyPerry>
Thread

changes names

like a girl

changes clothes
</KatyPerry>

[Gravlen]

Did they, though?

Well, I only had the article to go on, so, yeah. It is a fox news piece, probably grain of salt and all that.

But, assuming that what the article said is true, then yeah. But, yeah, big assumption on that part.

We have the complaint as well. And as I've said before, even based on that one-sided version of events, it's not clear that the procedure was, in fact, botched.

[Auralia]

Planned Parenthood is being accused of performing a forced abortion. Read the complaint.

CD, before you go charging further down the road about "TitleGate 2013," a quick Google search finds that even Pro-Life groups are referring to this as an "botched abortion" case. That includes LifeNews.com: "Planned Parenthood Botched Abortion, Left Part of Baby Inside Woman". See also Woman Sues Over Abortion Nightmare - WorldNetDaily.

I think the title should be changed to: "Planned Parenthood doctor accused of forced abortion". It's close to what CD wanted, and Fris said it was OK.

EDIT: "Smash", you're back. Do you plan on participating in the GA's debates?

[Kengburg]

I was thinking about rejoining this thread, but then I just said "Nah, not worth my time."

[Blouman Empire]

I was thinking about rejoining this thread, but then I just said "Nah, not worth my time."

You do know this is NSG right?

[Supermarionation]

What would have been better if the Planned Parenthood clinic was shut down?

Byer applied there for an abortion by Mifeprestone, thinking she was 8 weeks pregnant. After examination she was informed the pregnancy was too advanced for that, and she then agreed to an abortion by EVA. This suggests a pregnancy between 8 and 12 weeks maturity.

This is from the only primary source we have, which is the poorly written suit in which she is seeking monetary compensation.

Byer's lawyer does not at all dispute that she had freely agreed to an abortion by Mifeprestone. The assertions after that are the basis of the suit (that she was "pressured", that she was "Illegally imprisoned", that the "anaesthesia by IV" which she was promised was not administered, that she didn't recieve follow up care and that complications of not completing the vacuum aspiration when the operation was cut short on her own request were the doctor's fault) may or may not have substance but there is no dispute in there that she sought an abortion by pill when she thought she was 8 weeks pregnant.

The assertions of bad practice by the doctor shouldn't be dismissed as untrue. If true, certainly Byers should get some compensation, but there is very little in the suit to substantiate them so that will have to wait for court ... if the case is even pursued that far.

However, the suit does not dispute that the woman made an appointment of her own free will, intending to procure an abortion by pill.

Had the Planned Parenthood clinic been shut down as the OP would clearly like, it is very likely she would have procured Mifeprestone by some other means and administered it to herself. Despite it not being the ideal method after 8 weeks it very likely would have caused abortion, and if it hadn't would almost certainly have done lasting injury to the fetus.

How is that better? What would that solve, Christian Democrats ?