- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alabama IVF ruling
Posted on 2/22/24 at 7:33 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/22/24 at 7:33 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
You're really going to refuse to acknowledge this makes things much more expensive... Why?
Quantify it. Does an IVF procedure in AL now cost 2% more?
What additional burdens are on an IVF clinic that weren’t there before? Be very specific.
quote:
This in turn means higher prices for the business which are almost always passed on to the consumer, or in this case, the patient.
Right. The cost of doing business in healthcare with regards to insurance is already incredibly high. IVF is largely a cash ballgame. And very expensive. I don’t think you have any idea how this situation will be more expensive. You’re just sure that it will be because the “Evangelicals are messing with healthcare!!”
Posted on 2/22/24 at 7:40 am to tigerpawl
quote:
Theoretical question: what would happen if Modern Medicine discovered a way to keep everyone alive until the age of 200? Would that be good or bad for mankind?
Depends on the quality of life and whether or not it extends our ability to contribute to society.
quote:
Another question: are famines and natural disasters somehow useful?
I'm sure there's some sort of benefit from a macro perspective but I don't care enough to figure that out.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 7:46 am to hawkeye007
quote:clearly no relationship with Christ. you're just a blind,blithering idiot
was raised strict Pentecostal, evangelicals are a damn curse on the Republican party. The Dems have the progressives and the GOP have the evangelicals. Both are cancers to their parties.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 8:17 am to hawkeye007
Does this mean that any frozen embryos kept in Alabama can be claimed as dependents during tax time?
Posted on 2/22/24 at 9:07 am to the808bass
quote:
What additional burdens are on an IVF clinic that weren’t there before? Be very specific.
Structural upgrades that can handle a direct hit by a hurricane or tornado (CMU blocks with all cells filled with large rebar/cell), roofs that are rated for excessive uplift (category 5+), extra redundancies and refrigeration for ensuring proper ambient temperatures insulation (HVAC equipment), electrical upgrades that ensure extended operation without facility power, including fuel, generators, surge protectors.
You're basically going to have to ensure the facility storing the embryos is a bunker that can handle every tornado or hurricane thrown at it can keep the embryos floating along, otherwise the operators face severe legal and criminal liability. The vast majority of healthcare facilities are designed to ensure the occupants survive long enough to get out, not keep subzero temperatures for extended for embryos to survive off the grid.
That costs a lot of money, and most IVF facilities don't have that level of infrastructure associated with it.
quote:
Right. The cost of doing business in healthcare with regards to insurance is already incredibly high. IVF is largely a cash ballgame. And very expensive. I don’t think you have any idea how this situation will be more expensive. You’re just sure that it will be because the “Evangelicals are messing with healthcare!!”
So if it's already high, and you're lowering the hurdles to sue and put IVF operators in jail, you seem to think that will not increase the costs? Brilliant! Let's make it more expensive and hope IVF operators stick around. This sounds like a great idea.
BTW you're going to have a hard time finding my last post mentioning anything regarding evangelicals. I don't care about religion (or lack there of), I care about how idiotic policies from the extremes of both parties impact normal people.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 9:17 am to NYNolaguy1
I am not sure how IVF clinics will able to afford insurance. The insurance companies could now be on the hook for hundreds or thousands of wrongful death claims should something go wrong.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 9:22 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Structural upgrades that can handle a direct hit by a hurricane or tornado (CMU blocks with all cells filled with large rebar/cell), roofs that are rated for excessive uplift (category 5+), extra redundancies and refrigeration for ensuring proper ambient temperatures insulation (HVAC equipment), electrical upgrades that ensure extended operation without facility power, including fuel, generators, surge protectors.
Lol.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 9:34 am to the808bass
quote:
Lol
Sigh... anywho thanks for your enlightening input to the discussion.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 9:41 am to VOR
quote:Not sure if this was meant as sarcasm, but for those of us who believe life begins at conception, this has been a legitimate concern and criticism of IVF since the start.
Wait, what about the poor zygotes?
Posted on 2/22/24 at 9:46 am to hawkeye007
This is ridiculous
Throwing away IVF embryos isn’t murder. IVF “conceived” lifeforms aren’t real people.
Throwing away IVF embryos isn’t murder. IVF “conceived” lifeforms aren’t real people.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 9:57 am to Sput
quote:
life begins at conception.
Part of concecption is attaching to the uterus. Eggs can be fertilized (which is what IVF is) but still not conceive.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:02 am to Sput
quote:
All comes down to if you believe life begins at conception.
By that standard birth control is abortion, as it precludes fertilized embyos from attaching to the uterine walls of a female, killing the embryo. This logic could get very interesting.
This post was edited on 2/22/24 at 10:03 am
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:15 am to FearTheFish
quote:
those of us who believe life begins at conception, this has been a legitimate concern and criticism of IVF since the start.
I believe that life begins at conception but part of that conception is attaching the fertilized egg to the uterus wall. IVF embryos are not conceived and even some fertilized eggs do not attach in IVF or natural child making.
This is a slipperly slope case that will get a lot of special interest attached to it as it makes its way to SCOTUS either this year (doubt it) or next term and we will get a big ruiling that could limit birth control in June 2025
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:17 am to Kang of Memphissippi
quote:
Throwing away IVF embryos isn’t murder. IVF “conceived” lifeforms aren’t real people.
Rational, literate people believe this.
Theocrats disagree, and currently run one of our two political parties.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:20 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Rational, literate people believe this.
People who think boys can become pregnant aren't rational.
People who can't correctly define "woman" aren't rational.
People who try and convince teens to mutilate their genitals aren't rational.
Your Party is trying to transform Science and Medicine into a religion.
Try again, idiot.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:21 am to oogabooga68
quote:
oogabooga68
Thank you for proving my point.
Only the ignorant agree with the Alabama theocratic Supreme Court ruling.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:22 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Rational, literate people believe this.
Theocrats disagree, and currently run one of our two political parties.
No doubt. I don’t even think IVF conceived individuals are real people even after birth and into adulthood. I just don’t believe they have souls.
The IVF kids I know have blank stares and are slow. Just don’t think they are real people
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:40 am to BamaAtl
Forgive my ignorance -
So a woman's body selects a cluster of eggs each month that are disposed of through her menstrual cycle. One 1 egg per month is actually selected for ovulation. So theoretically, a healthy woman has approximately 400-500 fertilizable eggs in her life (12 cycles per year, 1 egg per cycle, 40 years or fertility).
So if IVF takes her one egg for that month and pairs it with sperm, you get a lab embryo that is then implanted into the women's uterus. This assumes the fertilization is successful in the lab. It also requires successful implantation in the uterus for pregnancy.
So this result is allowing a wrongful death proceeding if an embryo is destroyed. I'm not privy to Alabama law, but I imagine there is a law akin to medical malpractice, where a doctor has to attest to the medical duty of care (higher than regular duty of care) being breached before a lawsuit can survive beyond the pleadings.
Practically speaking, it will increase insurance premiums for IVF facilities, force them to handle embryos with more care and precision, or face higher consequences.
I don't think this creates a strict liability scenario where any destruction is per se actionable - a Plaintiff would still have to show the facility or technician breached a duty of reasonable care. Natural disasters are unlikely to create a wrongful death claim.
Sorry for rambling - am I missing something? I'm not sure this is a real negative.
So a woman's body selects a cluster of eggs each month that are disposed of through her menstrual cycle. One 1 egg per month is actually selected for ovulation. So theoretically, a healthy woman has approximately 400-500 fertilizable eggs in her life (12 cycles per year, 1 egg per cycle, 40 years or fertility).
So if IVF takes her one egg for that month and pairs it with sperm, you get a lab embryo that is then implanted into the women's uterus. This assumes the fertilization is successful in the lab. It also requires successful implantation in the uterus for pregnancy.
So this result is allowing a wrongful death proceeding if an embryo is destroyed. I'm not privy to Alabama law, but I imagine there is a law akin to medical malpractice, where a doctor has to attest to the medical duty of care (higher than regular duty of care) being breached before a lawsuit can survive beyond the pleadings.
Practically speaking, it will increase insurance premiums for IVF facilities, force them to handle embryos with more care and precision, or face higher consequences.
I don't think this creates a strict liability scenario where any destruction is per se actionable - a Plaintiff would still have to show the facility or technician breached a duty of reasonable care. Natural disasters are unlikely to create a wrongful death claim.
Sorry for rambling - am I missing something? I'm not sure this is a real negative.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 10:45 am to Dizz
quote:Law of unintended consequences. It is the result of locking into a position without consideration of unforeseen possibilities. The Alabama Legislature can fix this.
This ruling essentially made the state responsible for an untold number of frozen embryos in the future.
Posted on 2/22/24 at 11:06 am to AubieinNC2009
quote:SCOTUS isn't going to touch this case. The legislature is tasked with creating laws and defining the terms contained in those laws.
as it makes its way to SCOTUS
Alabama (or any other state) is more than able to define to whom a law applies. In the AL case, the court interpreted that the legislature intended for the Wrongful Death of a Minor statute to apply to an embryo. The legislature can amend that statute next session to clarify and remove an embryo from the definition should it so choose.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News