Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Don’t be so dramatic. If anything it demonstrates that the ideas of abortion being a private matter between a woman and her doctor, or anyone having full autonomy over their own bodies, or being able to force medical professionals to violate the law, was always complete nonsense, as the medical profession are limited by what they can and cannot do within the law.

It’s no different any situation where medical professionals are limited by what they can or cannot do within the bounds of law or face prosecution for violating the law. It doesn’t follow that because a patient has the capacity to determine how they wish to be treated, that they can force medical professionals to treat them accordingly when it’s in violation of the law.

Bring it to the abortion discussion part 4 thread, not this one, which is about the recent SCOTUS decision. Your attempts at trolling questions have already been answered there.

What other healthcare procedures do doctors need to get legal advice about before being permitted to perform them their patients? I'm all ears.

I'm all ears.

Funny you should put it like that, but I’ll start with the easy ones, like sterilisation, hysterectomies, gender affirmation surgeries, hell I could roll ‘em all into one and give you an example of the US Supreme Court not being all ears, in that they refused to hear an appeal by a Catholic hospital against a lower court ruling to revive a lawsuit by a patient who accused the hospital of being in violation of California State law -

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-spurns-catholic-hospital-appeal-over-transgender-patient-2021-11-01/

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-18/hiltzik-catholic-hospital-discrimination-case

https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/catholic-hospitals-transgender-patients-discrimination

And that’s before we get to things like euthanasia and assisted suicide -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

Or the medical procedures involved in what’s called “the Ashley treatment” -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment

And that’s not counting numerous medical procedures where there is a conflict in terms of how patients are to be treated depending upon the circumstances involved in each case, from blood transfusions, to the more ghoulish end of the spectrum where we had a case in Ireland that demonstrated quite effectively the reluctance among the medical profession to proceed when they were in doubt as to what was or was not permitted by law and whether or not they could be held liable -

In approving the €150,000 settlement for Ms Perie's daughter, Mr Justice Kevin Cross said the child had endured "a terrible time".

He hoped, as she comes to adulthood, she would be comforted by good memories of her mother.

He said Ms Perie was kept alive due to what the High Court later decided was an erroneous view that there was some obligation to do so as a result of the Eighth Amendment.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/hse-apologises-to-family-of-pregnant-woman-kept-on-life-support-1.4089397

Of course the law in Ireland matters, in the same way the law in any country matters if I’m giving examples of medical procedures where doctors will seek legal advice before carrying out those procedures. The question was not what other procedures do doctors need to get legal permission for. The question was, specifically -

What other healthcare procedures do doctors need to get legal advice about before being permitted to perform them their patients?

In the examples I gave, doctors sought legal advice before going ahead with any medical procedures. The whole point of extra gravy’s question was making the point that somehow abortion as a medical procedure is unique in this regard. It’s not, not by a long shot, as demonstrated by the few examples I gave, where I could have given many.

I’m not skating around a point which I’m only aware of since you made it - the idea of SCOTUS being complicit in anything, let alone the idea that it’s because of SCOTUS decision that abortion now requires legal permission in many States where after Roe it did not. I’m absolutely certain that was never the case. Even with Roe in place and the attitude of the medical profession in the States being as gung ho, shoot first and ask questions later, as it is, medical professionals still had to adhere to laws which applied in those circumstances. It was never the case that abortion was any kind of free-for-all in any State.

If you’re REALLY desperate for anyone to blame for the current situation over there, you might start with the people who actually make the laws, or don’t, when they should have done instead of relying on Roe v Wade and meaningless political sloganeering in relation to abortion so they would never have to jeopardise their political careers by taking a clear stance on legislating specifically to permit abortion and under what circumstances. Instead you’re stuck with something that reads like the beginnings of a bad joke -

“Three Christians walk into the Oval Office, all claiming to support abortion so long as it’s safe, legal and rare”

That seems to have satisfied people, they voted for them. I wouldn’t expect such vague sentiments to appease anyone who knew the first thing about abortion, but sure, there’s a chance now for politicians to tackle the issue head-on rather than continuing to avoid it for the last 50 years because of a decision by the SCOTUS which made it convenient for them that they didn’t have to get their hands dirty and could maintain their appearance of giving a shìt about anyone but themselves.

getting to your local hospital for a life or death emergency during your pregnancy and then you have to be transferred out of state to get the procedure that saves your life

So, extragravy didn't include 'in the USA.' This is a thread about the decision of the SCOTUS. I thought it obvious but perhaps not. Decisions in courts in Europe matter not to the job of the SCOTUS; all that matters is the letter of the Constitution of the US and (at least, it used to matter) stare decisis. 

Does that help? Really, how Ireland decides things has no bearing or SHOULD have no bearing on US jurisprudence. Nor should the reverse be true, either.

No, it isn’t the least bit helpful, because extra gravy was referring to healthcare procedures, which I took to mean medical procedures seeing as it was relating to the limitations of the law upon medical professionals and the idea that abortion was being presented as the only circumstances where they would have to seek legal advice. Regardless of the jurisdiction the same principles still apply - medical professionals often find themselves in circumstances where they need to seek legal advice on how to proceed when treating a patient. Abortion is not a special case in that regard.

Pedantry on your part, really. The point your missing, but tbf extragravy didn't bring it up, is that the situation in the US is now, in the forced-birth states (like Oklahoma where life now begins at fertilization), that lawyers will now be involved in cases where they weren't in the past. When it comes to medical procedures like abortion, time matters. Making doctors consult with lawyers, means more time, potentially in crisis.

It’s not pedantry on my part. If you were interested in being fair, you’d have acknowledged that I answered the question I was asked, in good faith. I didn’t just do the snappy comeback one-liner effort, but went to the trouble of giving examples so that extra gravy might have a better understanding of where I was coming from - that there are numerous examples of circumstances where medical professionals will seek legal advice on how to proceed when they find themselves in circumstances where they need to seek legal advice.

I’m not missing the point at all. I understand perfectly the point extra gravy was making in saying that anyone who supports a person being forced to endure an ectopic pregnancy while the medical professionals are seeking legal advice on how to proceed, is evil. I suggested they stop being so dramatic. Maybe extra gravy isn’t familiar with the bruising caused by an ectopic pregnancy and that’s what motivated them to use that tweet as an example, but the bruising in the photo isn’t caused by medical professionals who don’t know the person in question, seeking legal advice before proceeding with treatment.

I certainly do get your point too - medical professionals are having to seek legal advice where it’s assumed they didn’t before and time is not on their side. I have no doubt they’re acutely aware of the fact, at least as acutely aware they are of the fact that they could be putting their career in jeopardy if they chose to proceed on the basis that they felt they were doing it for the right reasons. That kind of subjective reasoning doesn’t tend to fly very far should they find themselves in circumstances where they regret not seeking legal advice beforehand. It’s one of the reasons why legal advice is as expensive as it is, because it’s worth it, as opposed to this kind of nonsense -

"My behavior may not have been totally ethical," she said.

"But I did it for what I thought were the right reasons."

https://tulsaworld.com/archive/being-true-to-self-first-law-of-ethics-attorney-tells-conference/article_c6ba4b80-833e-59e8-a00c-3f9671670072.html

And we all know how the consequences of Ms. Weddington’s actions turned out - she did alright for herself; her client, not so much. Good thing for everyone she didn’t decide to go into medicine with that attitude.

So, we'll have the Savita Halappanavar situation in the forced-birth states where women might die in pain while doctors wait around for decisions. The point is, Doctors aren't lawyers and involving lawyers (like most recently in the ectopic pregnancy emergency story that's making the rounds), only risks women's lives. 

You declared earlier in the same post that this thread is about a decision of SCOTUS, by way of suggesting that the example I used of Natasha Perie here in Ireland and the legalities of that case somehow didn’t apply, but you can use Savita Halappanavar as an example of what might happen in the US? That IS me being as equally pedantic as you were being though. I don’t mind that you want to use that example, or the most recent example of a woman who was understandably angry that medical professionals who didn’t know her sought legal advice before treating her for an ectopic pregnancy.

There must be thousands of people who find themselves in those circumstances every single day in the US, never mind needing to use high profile examples from any other jurisdiction. It’s not unusual or unreasonable that medical professionals place greater weight on the risk to their careers than the risk to their patients as a consequence of how they are to proceed in the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy within the bounds of laws which apply in the jurisdiction in which they are employed to practice medicine. Even in Ohio -

How does this affect ectopic pregnancies?

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants and grows somewhere outside the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. The egg will not survive when this occurs, and it can be life-threatening to the pregnant person.

Because of that, ectopic pregnancies are exempt from Ohio's six-week ban. 

"If you’ve gotten far enough in the pregnancy that you see an ectopic with a heartbeat, that’s an emergency surgery," said Dr. Catherine Romanos, a family physician based in Columbus.

https://eu.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/06/29/ohio-abortion-law-what-know-six-week-ban-ectopic-pregnancy/7748045001/

In cases where there is a right to abortion, like many in the US, based on the law, the doctor can decide. Like for example that 10 year old girl who had to be transported from Ohio to Indiana for her abortion, because she qualified for one under Indiana law today.

That’s not what happened in the case you’re referring to though, because there was no attempt made to inquire as to whether or not the patient in question qualified under Ohio State law. The medical professional in question immediately sought the assistance of a colleague in another State rather than seeking legal advice. It’s unclear who sought to use the case as a political football to further their own personal beliefs regarding abortion and contacted the national media by which the case has made international headlines outside its own jurisdiction, but it’s not unreasonable to assume they share the same attitude as Ms. Weddington -

"My behavior may not have been totally ethical," she said.

"But I did it for what I thought were the right reasons."

Patients right to privacy be damned apparently, when it suits some people’s personal beliefs based upon their own standards of subjective ethics.

The ectopic pregnancy case wasn't in Ohio, and some states ban abortion even in those cases, no exemptions for health risk to the mother. The point you're missing again, is on the timing. These decisions, like the Savita Halappanavars case, risk the mothers life - even if the abortion happens (as was the case in the recent ectopic pregnancy crisis.) I brought up Savita's case as a well-known case in Ireland showing the dangers of delaying decisions due to legal 'investigations.' As Christy points out, if there's settled law (great phrase) the doctor will know what to do and not waste time with lawyers.

Not any more. Again, women will suffer and perhaps die, needlessly.

What happened in the circumstances in that particular case is somewhat beside the point Christy when the point is being made that a patient shouldn’t have to travel outside of the State to avail of medical treatment which is not available in the State due to existing laws which limit what medical professionals can and cannot do in any particular circumstances.

That’s why in that particular case it was necessary to seek legal advice as to whether or not a termination of the pregnancy was permissible in those circumstances. That the medical professionals involved in the case chose to make alternative arrangements is neither here nor there.

I’m not missing the point. I get the point that time is not on their side, that circumstances are changing rapidly and that medical professionals decisions are hampered by the legislation being unclear as to what form of treatment is permissible in any particular circumstances.

Like I said - I don’t mind that you bring up the case of Savita Halappanavar, I get the point - timing, and in that particular case there were a multitude of contributing factors that led to her death. It wasn’t simply the case that the medical professionals in question could have terminated the pregnancy and saved her life. You’d be speaking in hypotheticals after the fact, ignoring the fact that had the sepsis infection been managed properly it too might have saved her life, or it might not. There’s just no way of knowing anything one way or the other. Just to give you some idea - in 2016 alone -

According to research published by the National Sepsis Programme almost 15,000 cases of sepsis were diagnosed in Ireland in 2016, resulting in 2,735 deaths.

https://www.rcsi.com/dublin/news-and-events/news/news-article/2018/09/rcsi-urges-people-to-learn-to-spot-sepsis-the-silent-killer

2019, wasn’t much better -

In Ireland, in 2019, sepsis or septic shock was documented in 12,908 non-pregnant adults and these patients had a mortality rate of 19.7%.

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/7ce92-department-of-health-publishes-the-national-clinical-effectiveness-committees-national-clinical-guidelines-no-26-sepsis-management-for-adults-including-maternity/

I dunno what sort of conspiracy theories you have in mind that you refer to legal ‘investigations’ as the cause of delays in her treatment that you imagine could have prevented her death, when all the investigations done afterwards pointed to numerous contributing factors.

Doctors knew what to do, however one of the contributing factors was that they didn’t do it, whereas in other circumstances the medical professionals involved knew what to do and manage patients conditions properly. Patients unfortunately in some cases still die, in spite of medical professionals best efforts.

Medical professionals will still continue to seek legal advice where there is a risk involved that they may be held liable for, such as the case which was, as you say doing the rounds on Twitter. There’s a couple of ways of treating an ectopic pregnancy, depending upon the circumstances, and removal of the foetus as well as the fallopian tube is one of last resort, not just because of what medical professionals are or aren’t permitted to do in law, but because they don’t want to have patients dying needlessly either.

Before taking such drastic measures they will generally seek legal advice to minimise the adverse effects of any legal consequences for their actions which could result in their license to practice medicine being revoked, or being held criminally liable for their actions.

There’s no possible way of avoiding that possibility, which seems to be what you’re arguing in favour of doing, permitting medical professionals to have free reign, indemnifying them from the consequences of their actions so that’s one less legal restriction on how the medical profession practices medicine, under threat of the idea that people will die if the medical profession aren’t given free reign.

That’s not the compelling argument you imagine it is.

It’s hypotheticals now because we’ll never know whether or not it could have been successfully argued in that particular case that allowing the pregnancy to proceed under the circumstances would present a substantial risk to the life of the child in question. I say it could have been successfully argued and a termination of the pregnancy being permitted. I’d dread to think the medical professionals in question sought to use the case to further their own personal beliefs about abortion.

Medical professionals aren’t being prevented from doing their job. It’s HOW they do their job is what may become an issue. Take for example the transvaginal mesh scandal, dunno if you’re familiar with it - medical professionals just doing their jobs? No, no it’s not as clear cut as that at all -

https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/analysis/transvaginal-mesh-timeline/

That’s why there are standards of professional ethics in both law and medicine to prevent the sort of “God complex” attitude that allows for individuals to justify their actions on the basis that while they knew what they were doing was unethical, they were doing it for what they thought were the right reasons. If that sort of subjective justification were permissible, both lawyers and medical practitioners could argue their way out of anything. That’s why the law refers to the standard of there being a substantial risk - because of course while there are risks in pregnancy, a substantial risk to the life of the pregnant person means circumstances that are over and above the typical risks involved in ordinary circumstances.

Medical professionals still maintain the right, and the duty of care for their patients, to make those determinations, and the legal professionals involved will advise them accordingly, or advise patients and their families accordingly, whatever are the particular circumstances in each case -

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hospitals-incorporating-lawyers-teams-address-patients-legal-needs

I don’t think for a minute any circumstances are cut and dry, and that’s why anyone will have difficulty giving you a satisfactory explanation of what constitutes substantial risk by virtue of the fact that it depends upon the circumstances involved in each and every case, as opposed to the idea that a standard can be determined objectively and somehow considered ‘settled law’ when it isn’t, or wasn’t, and was always susceptible to being overturned -

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/09/why-settled-law-isnt-really-settled-and/?amp

It can’t have escaped your attention that people who abandon the ethnical standards of their profession in favour of their own subjective personal beliefs, more often than not tends to lead to greater harm and suffering for more people, as opposed to the opposite intended effect. The outcome for their client in Roe v Wade is just one example.

I’m hoping that limitations placed on medical professionals in terms of how they treat their patients will mean that the maternal mortality rate in the US, which is one of the highest in the developed world, will be addressed, and that it won’t be just the case that as you suggest, individual wealth will continue to be the determining factor in terms of people’s health over the course of their lifetimes:

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/27/roe-v-wade-overturned-maternal-mortality-rate-will-rise

https://www.cdc.gov/sepsis/what-is-sepsis.html

In order for that to happen though, it requires a people willing to elect political representatives who aren’t just interested in making their already wealthy donors, even wealthier -

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/drug-donations-us-election/

https://www.businessinsider.com/healthcare-corporations-and-pharma-give-big-to-anti-abortion-movement-2022-5?amp

I don’t think American society is ready for that just yet. It’s still at the stage where every election they appear to be satisfied with settling for the least worst outcome.

Obviously individual wealth will be the determining factor. To begin with anyone wealthy will not be effected by this. Then we have the issue that these limitations will do nothing to lower the maternal death rate nor are they intended to. As you say that is caused by wealth and so the only solution would be for better public care in the US. Changing how they do their jobs is stopping them from doing their jobs. This has absolutely nothing to do stopping doctors from doing something bad for the patient and you know it. It is all about using women as incubators. How many women died due to being given an abortion since you suggest that these laws might decrease the maternal death rate somehow magically?

Plenty of countries have liberal abortion laws and still have far far lower death rates. Simply because banning abortion does not help maternal deaths and they have better health systems. These laws are not phrased to stop doctors acting outside of their patients best interest and I have no idea why you are suggesting otherwise.

Well it needs to be a cut and dry explanation of substantial risk. It is part of the law and the doctor needs to know if they can treat the patient legally or not. We can't have several court cases to figure it out in this case first.

How... unsurprising.

Apparently some Evangeliban held prayer sessions with members of the SCOTUS in chambers. Lovely.