Planned Parenthood doctor accused of doing forced abortion

[Blouman Empire]

And if it is malpractice then the doctor should be quite rightly sued. And isn't that happening in this case?

Oh yes, I don't doubt the doctor should be fired, but the idea that it was a forced abortion is what I contest. Well, I also contest that it's somehow Planned Parenthood's fault, and that the clinic should be closed, but those are separate issues.

Yes maybe the OP used the wrong words but it seems we are in agreement. I don't think it is the organisations fault either or that the clinic should be closed, we would need systematic actions before that occurs.

[Gravlen]

So who's responsible for the complaint?

Why, this guy! Seen here praying with Santa!
(Image)

See his whole 30 second add here... And ask yourself:

When was the last time you prayed with your lawyer?

If things happened even remotely like this woman claims, I would have to imagine one of the really good pro-life lawyers would be handling her case. Or, we could conclude that she thought to herself, "You know, I would go with this very professional lawyer who has a lot of experience with abortion cases, but I'd rather go with the kind of lawyer who prays with Santa Claus!"

Might be she sold out to Christ as well...

And he might have promised her a million-dollar settlement or a resounding victory. Considering the fact that he's a Promise Keeper, that's, like, money in the bank.

[The Black Forrest]

You're claiming that abortions are voluntary manslaughter (if not murder), what makes miscarriage not involuntary manslaughter under your logic? Accidents may happen, but freak accidents have been prosecuted under involuntary manslaughter.

Miscarriage is not under any fault of the mother (unless it was somehow induced), hence the mother cannot be blamed for any crime.

How do you prove induced?

[Individuality-ness]

You're claiming that abortions are voluntary manslaughter (if not murder), what makes miscarriage not involuntary manslaughter under your logic? Accidents may happen, but freak accidents have been prosecuted under involuntary manslaughter.

Miscarriage is not under any fault of the mother (unless it was somehow induced), hence the mother cannot be blamed for any crime.

You do know why miscarriages happen, right? You do know what manslaughter is, right?

[Risottia]

Some 26 pages too late.

These are times when I wish I didn't need sleep or a life so I could stay on NSG 24/7

Yeah same.

Damn XXI century. Where's the direct brain-to-matrix connection I was promised?

[Blouman Empire]

And if it is malpractice then the doctor should be quite rightly sued. And isn't that happening in this case?

If it is malpractice I am totally open to the doctor being sued, but Nideria trying to say that Planned Parenthood's goal is to kill all the fetuses it can and force women to abort is absurd. Actions of one does not represent the ideals and goals of all.

Well I'm not Nideria and I haven't said anything like that poster has. If you think I am wrong then you should focus on what I am saying and not another poster.

[Blouman Empire]

These are times when I wish I didn't need sleep or a life so I could stay on NSG 24/7

Yeah same.

Damn XXI century. Where's the direct brain-to-matrix connection I was promised?

Fucking science, they need to hurry up and get their act together.

[Snafturi]

If things happened even remotely like this woman claims, I would have to imagine one of the really good pro-life lawyers would be handling her case. Or, we could conclude that she thought to herself, "You know, I would go with this very professional lawyer who has a lot of experience with abortion cases, but I'd rather go with the kind of lawyer who prays with Santa Claus!"

Might be she sold out to Christ as well...

And he might have promised her a million-dollar settlement or a resounding victory. Considering the fact that he's a Promise Keeper, that's, like, money in the bank.

A Promise Keeper who prays with Santa? I've completely changed my opinion. How could anyone NOT go with that lawyer?

[Auralia]

She wanted to procure an abortion with anesthesia. The abortionist went ahead with the procedure without anesthesia in spite of her saying that she didn't want to go through with it anymore. Then, he almost killed her.

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.)

[Frisivisia]

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.)

So your argument is "Well, I may be wrong, but here's a distraction!".

Oh, and in cases where the mother would die without an abortion, but would live with one, it's not a misnomer.

And nice straw man. You'll go far as a anti-choicer.

[Grave_n_idle]

After re reading the case, it actually sounds like the doctor is completely safe from harm, but rather the person who was trying to get the IV in and failed is to blame. I think it's very likely that the Doctor may have thought the IV was in her and anesthesia was being administered, though it in fact was not.

Reading the complaint - it seems that the IV was in before surgery commenced, and the only evidence that anesthesia was not administered is the anecdotal evidence of Byer.

The claim to injury (required for a malpractice suit) all seems to hinge on the fact that the abortion was left incomplete, and thus there were adverse effects after the surgery - but the complaint also makes it explicitly clear that the patient demanded the procedure be stopped even when advised against stopping.

[Blouman Empire]

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.)

See that was against abortion so many people on NSG are going to be against it and blame everyone and say it is not only the doctors fault but the hospital and the entire church.

In this case it is happening to an organisation that gives abortions therefore they must defend everything including the doctor.

Some people can't take things on a case by case basis and look at it rationally they must move in and defend anything based on their prior notions because fuck facts.

[Frisivisia]

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.)

See that was against abortion so many people on NSG are going to be against it and blame everyone and say it is not only the doctors fault but the hospital and the entire church.

In this case it is happening to an organisation that gives abortions therefore they must defend everything including the doctor.

Some people can't take things on a case by case basis and look at it rationally they must move in and defend anything based on their prior notions because fuck facts.

Good, let the pretentious politi-hipster flow through you.

[Blouman Empire]

Good, let the pretentious politi-hipster flow through you.

Is that really the best you could do? I'm disappointed. Go back and try again.

[Auralia]

So your argument is "Well, I may be wrong, but here's a distraction!".

With respect to the Planned Parenthood case? I wasn't commenting on that.

Oh, and in cases where the mother would die without an abortion, but would live with one, it's not a misnomer.

Again, as far as I know, there is no medical condition which is treated by direct abortion (excluding medical procedures which have, as a side effect, the death of the child, which is an important distinction).

And nice straw man. You'll go far as a anti-choicer.

What straw man? Again, this has nothing to do with the Planned Parenthood case. And I hate it when people use the term "anti-choice"; pro-lifers don't use the term "anti-life", in an attempt to keep the debate civil.

[Mistelemr]

Some people can't take things on a case by case basis and look at it rationally they must move in and defend anything based on their prior notions because fuck facts.

That's very true, and it's something that is hard to separate out from many people (left, right and center). Don't look down on the people that jump into the fray without having read the evidence before them, for they are not worth your gaze.

That being said, I will hold NO ONE responsible for reading that FOX news article, and will award people conciliatory internets for even having mentioned it. Using FOX news as a source should be an offence punishable by law (that punishment should be HELPING HOMELESS PEOPLE YOU PREVIOUSLY PISSED ON).

[Norstal]

Elective abortions are bad enough, but now it seems that Planned Parenthood is taking its war on the unborn up another level.

Hey I can pull this kind of shit too.

All I need is post about Catholic priest sexual abuse someone and then implicate the entire Catholic church and its members for it. Just like you did with abortion and pro-choice advocates.

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.)

See that was against abortion so many people on NSG are going to be against it and blame everyone and say it is not only the doctors fault but the hospital and the entire church.

In this case it is happening to an organisation that gives abortions therefore they must defend everything including the doctor.

Some people can't take things on a case by case basis and look at it rationally they must move in and defend anything based on their prior notions because fuck facts.

Except that, as Auralia said, the doctors are required to do it. So, it really isn't just the doctors. It's everyone involved, including the ones who promoted the law that requires doctors to do just that.

Trying to find an issue where there aren't any isn't going to get you anywhere and I'm sure the ones reading this thread will appreciate it if you stop distracting them.

[Frisivisia]

So your argument is "Well, I may be wrong, but here's a distraction!".

With respect to the Planned Parenthood case? I wasn't commenting on that.

Oh, and in cases where the mother would die without an abortion, but would live with one, it's not a misnomer.

Again, as far as I know, there is no medical condition which is treated by direct abortion (excluding medical procedures which have, as a side effect, the death of the child, which is an important distinction).

And nice straw man. You'll go far as a anti-choicer.

What straw man? Again, this has nothing to do with the Planned Parenthood case. And I hate it when people use the term "anti-choice"; pro-lifers don't use the term "anti-life", in an attempt to keep the debate civil.

1) This thread is about the Planned Parenthood case. It's not Generic Abortion thread, though I think that would be a good idea.

2) How about difficulties with childbirth, or allergy to the fetus (forget what that's called, happened to my mom) to the point of death?

3) It's a straw man because you argued against an argument which wasn't there.

Good, let the pretentious politi-hipster flow through you.

Is that really the best you could do? I'm disappointed. Go back and try again.

Did my assessment of your post not flatter you?

[Gravlen]

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.

Well, not everybody...

[Blouman Empire]

Except that, as Auralia said, the doctors are required to do it. So, it really isn't just the doctors. It's everyone involved, including the ones who promoted the law that requires doctors to do just that.

Trying to find an issue where there aren't any isn't going to get you anywhere and I'm sure the ones reading this thread will appreciate it if you stop distracting them.

That's true I think the better issue to compare my story on many Generalities would've been the rape test kit in Germany we had a few months back, where it was the nurses coming up with some policy that didn't even exist yet everyone was quick to jump up and down and attack everything while in this case many posters are either quick to defend or sit back and say let's not jump to conclusions and let the court sort it out.

[Blouman Empire]

Did my assessment of your post not flatter you?

I can't admit to it because no true hipster admits to being a hipster.

[Frisivisia]

Except that, as Auralia said, the doctors are required to do it. So, it really isn't just the doctors. It's everyone involved, including the ones who promoted the law that requires doctors to do just that.

Trying to find an issue where there aren't any isn't going to get you anywhere and I'm sure the ones reading this thread will appreciate it if you stop distracting them.

That's true I think the better issue to compare my story on many Generalities would've been the rape test kit in Germany we had a few months back, where it was the nurses coming up with some policy that didn't even exist yet everyone was quick to jump up and down and attack everything while in this case many posters are either quick to defend or sit back and say let's not jump to conclusions and let the court sort it out.

Who is this "many Generalites" here, why are you attacking them, and what does this have to do with this thread?

[Frisivisia]

Did my assessment of your post not flatter you?

I can't admit to it because no true hipster admits to being a hipster.

Didn't you just admit it there?

[Ygganda]

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.

[Blouman Empire]

I can't admit to it because no true hipster admits to being a hipster.

Didn't you just admit it there?

Damn it, you and your tricks.