- 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: Here's the quote from the Virginia governor's press conference on their new abortion bill
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:24 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:24 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Again, he said "it's done in cases where there MAY BE severe deformities, where there MAY BE a fetus that is nonviable." Trust me. That is the full context.
I do not agree with that then. It needs to be clear that the likelihood of having any type of recovery given todays standard of medical care to be virtually zero.
I was just trying to illustrate that withdrawing care =\= murder....in the proper context of course.
2
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:26 pm to ShortyRob
I’m not trying to address the VA law. I’m discussing something different. If you’d like to participate, feel free.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:26 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:Again . . . .
Well I guess we “murdered” a 9year old earlier today. Got hit by a bus a week ago. Massive subdural and epidural hematomas. Complete A-O dissociation of his spine. We could have kept his heart beating and lungs expanding into perpetuity. Parents elected to withdraw care after discussion with Neurosurgeons.
quote:
Look, for purpose of this discussion and to clarify, if we are talking about an anencephalic birth, the decision as the governor delineated is entirely appropriate.
If that is what we were discussing, the governor would have said it.
He didn't.
Part of why he didn't is because that decision and care path is already in place in all 50 states. It is already 100% legal throughout the country. It is already law, as you likely realize. This new law delineates something very different.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:29 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
This has literally nothing to do with the Virginia law as proposed. It's 100% obfuscation
And withdrawal of care implies at least an attempt was made. No such effort is considered necessary for what we're talking about here.
This post was edited on 1/30/19 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:30 pm to Powerman
quote:
They elected withdraw care.
Certainly you understand the difference between this and bypassing (or outright disallowing) care all together?
Not really. Its often not binary, but levels of care. The family opted against surgery (totally “bypassing” it as you put it)—which is totally reasonable.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:31 pm to Powerman
quote:
And withdrawal of care implies at least an attempt was made
“Withdrawal of care” or decision to opt immediately for “comfort care” doesn’t have a meaningful distinction based on the discussion we are having.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:32 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Not really. Its often not binary, but levels of care. The family opted against surgery (totally “bypassing” it as you put it)—which is totally reasonable.
It's not logically analogous. The appropriate analogy would be if they didn't allow the ambulance to admit the child to the hospital.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:33 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:Correct.
I was just trying to illustrate that withdrawing care =\= murder....in the proper context of course.
and to reiterate, withdrawing care in nonviable scenarios would require no new law. It is already law, as was the case with the 9y/o you noted.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:33 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Withdrawal of care” or decision to opt immediately for “comfort care” doesn’t have a meaningful distinction based on the discussion we are having.
Which is my point. No need to withdraw care when you outright deny it 100%. There is nothing to withdraw.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:33 pm to Powerman
quote:
The appropriate analogy would be if they didn't allow the ambulance to admit the child to the hospital.
No, then the analogous situation to that would be having the child at home alone not with medical providers.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:35 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I do not agree with that then. It needs to be clear that the likelihood of having any type of recovery given todays standard of medical care to be virtually zero.
I was just trying to illustrate that withdrawing care =\= murder....in the proper context of course.
I think pretty much everyone agrees with that
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:35 pm to NC_Tigah
How long until they advocate being able to put down during the first year of life?
The bridge seems to be there..
The bridge seems to be there..
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:36 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
No, then the analogous situation to that would be having the child at home alone not with medical providers.
Wrong again. During labor there are 2 patients.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:36 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
“Withdrawal of care” or decision to opt immediately for “comfort care” doesn’t have a meaningful distinction based on the discussion we are having.
And there is no need for a new law anywhere in this country to address either.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Correct. and to reiterate, withdrawing care in nonviable scenarios would require no new law. It is already law, as was the case with the 9y/o you noted.
Understood. Albeit I didn’t read this new bill. Just the context of the quotes mentioning “resuscitation” and “keeping baby comfortable” made it seem like he was discussing the clear situation I’ve mentioned. Would this bill allow for a beautiful, healthy 7lb 8oz baby to, essentially, be starved to death in the hospital on a whim? I think we all can agree thats morally reprehensible and antithetical to modern medical ethics.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:39 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Understood. Albeit I didn’t read this new bill. Just the context of the quotes mentioning “resuscitation” and “keeping baby comfortable” made it seem like he was discussing the clear situation I’ve mentioned. Would this bill allow for a beautiful, healthy 7lb 8oz baby to, essentially, be starved to death in the hospital on a whim? I think we all can agree thats morally reprehensible and antithetical to modern medical ethics
Right. It only applies to hideous babies with deformities. Totally awesome.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:42 pm to L.A.
I am a labor and delivery Nurse. That is insane and THAT is murder. 100% murder. The baby is out of th3 Mother and alive. Murder.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:44 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:Within confines of the bill it seems that beautiful 7#8oz baby could be terminated up to and even during labor.
Would this bill allow for a beautiful, healthy 7lb 8oz baby to, essentially, be starved to death in the hospital on a whim?
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:45 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Would this bill allow for a beautiful, healthy 7lb 8oz baby to, essentially, be starved to death in the hospital on a whim?
It certainly wouldn't prevent it.
Posted on 1/30/19 at 7:46 pm to L.A.
It’s the “Northam 5 second rule”.
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News