You know, I read the book The Trial of Abigail Goodman a couple of years ago, and I found it interesting, but something I didn't really see as likely to happen in real life. Cases like this make me think it could be possible after all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like I am missing something somewhere. Is there another take on the story? I'd like to read an unbiased source and see if this site left anything out. As written, I agree, it does sound sickening.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Diana Kasdan said if the ruling stands it could lead to the state virtually taking over the lives of pregnant women, including telling them what they should or should not eat and drink and what medications they must take.
quote:Originally posted by Godric: How does this case directly relate to being pro-choice?
Because it is an example of a woman's rights over her own body being subject to the rights of "someone else". When, on behalf of another person (assuming a fetus is a person), a woman can be forced to undergo medical procedures against her will, she does not have the full rights of a human being.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey it could be worse. She could be living in Utah, where miscarriage is about to be a CRIME.
quote: bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage.... In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior. Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy.
quote:"This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident."
Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.
"This statute and the standards chosen leave a large number of pregnant women vulnerable to arrest even though they have no intention of ending a pregnancy," Paltrow said. "Whether or not the legislature intended this bill to become a tool for policing and punishing all pregnant women, if enacted this law would permit prosecution of a pregnant woman who stayed with her abusive husband because she was unable to leave. Not leaving would, under the 'reckless' standard, constitute conduct that consciously disregarded a substantial risk," Paltrow explained.
posted
Samp: Not that I think the law is a good one, it sounds like the language is extremely poor, but do you think it should be permissible for a woman to intentionally harm her own body in an effort to induce a miscarriage, which in of itself carries a chance of being fatal to the woman?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, define "harm".
I don't feel capable of giving a working definition of harm. To me its the intent that is more important.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think avoiding that problem is a very good reason for abortion to be legal and easily accessible.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: Not that I think the law is a good one, it sounds like the language is extremely poor, but do you think it should be permissible for a woman to intentionally harm her own body in an effort to induce a miscarriage, which in of itself carries a chance of being fatal to the woman?
Yes. Even though it is a stupid idea, and even though it could cause potential problems for both.
We shouldn't be allowing our legal system to treat them like their pregnancy is more important than their rights.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: I'm not thinking about it in terms of does she have a right to kill a fetus. I'm thinking of it in a similar sense to how committing suicide is illegal, or even self mutilation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've beat this story to death on one of my parenting message boards...to make a long story short, every single mother or mother-to-be, whether pro-life or pro-choice, was disturbed by the doctor being able to order a woman to stay in the hospital.
As far as the Utah law and women being allowed to hurt themselves or their fetuses....yikes. Just...yikes.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Historically, various states listed the act as a felony, but all were reluctant to enforce it. By 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime (North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma, which repealed its law in 1976). By the early 1990s only two US states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.
2. Suicide is not self-mutilation
quote:Self-harm (SH) or deliberate self-harm (DSH) includes self-injury (SI) and self-poisoning and is defined as the intentional, direct injuring of body tissue without suicidal intent.[1][2][3]
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I believe you'll find that suicide is not, in fact, illegal; nor is self-mutilation.
How do you mean?
When I say "X is not illegal", what I generally mean is that there is no law against X. I do not understand your question.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I believe you'll find that suicide is not, in fact, illegal; nor is self-mutilation.
How do you mean?
When I say "X is not illegal", what I generally mean is that there is no law against X. I do not understand your question.
OK I was under the impression it still was. But if you do either of those things it's not as if the government just says, "Well that's your right."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]OK I was under the impression it still was. But if you do either of those things it's not as if the government just says, "Well that's your right."
The government doesn't get involved much, unless the suicide attempt lands you in the hospital. Even then, a 72-hour psych hold is really about as much as they can do.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK I was under the impression it still was. But if you do either of those things it's not as if the government just says, "Well that's your right."
The government doesn't say anything. The government doesn't get involved. And yes, that IS my right.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kwea: I'm not thinking about it in terms of does she have a right to kill a fetus. I'm thinking of it in a similar sense to how committing suicide is illegal, or even self mutilation.
attempting to commit suicide it is illegal. Succeeding is death, and not illegal.
She wasn't self mutilating, or trying to kill herself. She was attempting to get a second opinion, and she was trying to support her family. She happened to be pregnant.
Women are not baby-vending machines. The reason behind making abortion legal is based on that fact....that women have a fundamental right to control their own bodies, and live their own lives. No doctor should be able to take that right away simply because in his opinion she is placing herself at possible risk doing normal everyday activities.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay I skimmed the article. But I want to give my perspective on what might have happened or the cases in which similar things happen.
A physician has the duty to estimate a patient's capacity to agree or decline treatment. This is determined through an interview in which the physician tries to decide things such as: -Can the person communicate their choice? -Does the person show an understanding of the risks/benefits. -Can they maintain their choice?
If the physician believes that the person cannot prove they have the capacity to make the decision in question, then can pursue an emergency guardianship. Until the time they are granted an emergency guardianship, they are to maintain whatever measures are necessary to uphold the patient's life. This could include things like keeping them in the hospital, or an emergency surgery. If a judge agrees to the guardianship, they will appoint someone to act as guardian (family member, sometimes lawyers act as guardians) who will then make medical decisions on behalf of the patient.
A physician doesn't automatically decide, for example, that someone lacks capacity just because they disagree with their physician. The patient does have to prove they understand the risks they are taking. Mental illness is sometimes considered an exception to understanding the risk. For example, if someone is refusing care for a treatable but otherwise fatal illness and appears to be depressed with suicidal thinking, that could be a situation in which they lack capacity to decline that treatment.
It's subjective and sometimes a very difficult decision. It's a temporary decision that then goes to a judge to evaluate. I'm writing this as someone who has given recommendations about people's capacity in the hospital.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe you'll find that suicide is not, in fact, illegal; nor is self-mutilation.
No, they're not illegal in the sense that you can be put in jail, or given civil fines for the act themselves.
However, it is worth noting that law enforcement personnel and medical emergency personnel ARE authorized to stop people from committing suicide and self-mutilation; and our court system in many states allows individuals to be kept in mental hospitals against their will.
Society recognizes an individual's worth even when the individual does not.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
dabbler, was there any indication that this woman was not competent? Or that she was trying to commit suicide?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying I don't know the details of this case, just the brief article I read. I'm commenting on the kinds of situations in which a physician can hold a patient against their will. It's possible that something like that happened.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kwea: I'm not thinking about it in terms of does she have a right to kill a fetus. I'm thinking of it in a similar sense to how committing suicide is illegal, or even self mutilation.
attempting to commit suicide it is illegal. Succeeding is death, and not illegal.
She wasn't self mutilating, or trying to kill herself. She was attempting to get a second opinion, and she was trying to support her family. She happened to be pregnant.
Women are not baby-vending machines. The reason behind making abortion legal is based on that fact....that women have a fundamental right to control their own bodies, and live their own lives. No doctor should be able to take that right away simply because in his opinion she is placing herself at possible risk doing normal everyday activities.
I've already said that in this instance I think this is wrong, and potentially very dangerous.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True....I wasn't trying to beat you up about it, just stating MY opinion on the matter.
This seems to me to be a direct attack on abortion rights though. I wasn't there....as dabbler says there could be a ton of other considerations we aren't aware of, but I am having trouble seeing why a patient would be barred from seeking a second opinion, and why she wasn't allowed to change hospitals.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Women are not baby-vending machines. The reason behind making abortion legal is based on that fact....that women have a fundamental right to control their own bodies, and live their own lives.
This is only partially true, though. The decision to have sex implies a sacrifice of some degree of those rights if it results in pregnancy. That's because the baby has rights too, and the two must be balanced. The question is to what degree are the mother's rights limited, and whether or not the government or a doctor gets to decide that.
For instance, its wrong for a woman who is 8 months pregnant to be out bar hopping, regardless of how much she personally wants to drink and would normally have a right to if she were not pregnant. I think that's one example of a generally accepted limitation of the mother's ethical rights in favor of the baby's.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Women are not baby-vending machines. The reason behind making abortion legal is based on that fact....that women have a fundamental right to control their own bodies, and live their own lives.
This is only partially true, though. The decision to have sex implies a sacrifice of some degree of those rights if it results in pregnancy. That's because the baby has rights too, and the two must be balanced. The question is to what degree are the mother's rights limited, and whether or not the government or a doctor gets to decide that.
For instance, its wrong for a woman who is 8 months pregnant to be out bar hopping, regardless of how much she personally wants to drink and would normally have a right to if she were not pregnant. I think that's one example of a generally accepted limitation of the mother's ethical rights in favor of the baby's.
I completely disagree. Ethical duties are different from what should be coerced by the government. Women are full citizens and baring them committing a criminal act or the draft, you don't get to take those rights away regardless of who needs to use their bodies. Having sex does not mean relinquishing full rights as a human being. Nor does being pregnant.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you believe paying child support should be coerced by the government, or should it be left up to individuals to decide whether or not they will accept that particular ethical duty?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paying child support is not the same as letting someone use your body without your consent. The government makes us pay money for lots of things. Taxes, contracts, debts. It does not force us to allow other people to use our organs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree it is not the same. But it is an ethical duty brought on by a pregnancy that is legally enforced by the government.
As for use of our bodies, although it doesn't relate to pregnancy, I'd note that people normally are legally required to register for the draft.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You will note that I mentioned the draft earlier. It should not be legally enforced by the government unless women are not considered full citizens.
If, for example, you made the decision to travel with your child in a car and got into a car accident and due to this accident, your child needed a kidney I believe that you would have an ethical duty to provide that kidney. Can you imagine the government forcing a man to provide that kidney against his will? People would go crazy!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We still use government to provide based on an 'ethical duty' -- it's sort of written in with the whole providing for the 'common welfare' stuff in the constitution. The difference being that we do so using social pools and taxation and (in SPECIFIC instances like jury duty) compulsory service. While it's leagues away from tying women to hospital beds to ensure they don't miscarry or pulling the "excuse me sir, can we have your liver" skit from Monty Python, you can say that the language technically applies.
Albiet in a saner way which doesn't act as an analogue for, say, having doctors supersede the autonomous rights of women because they are carrying child.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If, for example, you made the decision to travel with your child in a car and got into a car accident and due to this accident, your child needed a kidney I believe that you would have an ethical duty to provide that kidney. Can you imagine the government forcing a man to provide that kidney against his will? People would go crazy!
That's true. So are you arguing that, while the government can coerce people to enforce ethical responsibilities involving their money, their rights over their own body and organs are different and cannot be legally restricted, even if there is some moral responsibility involved?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
ETA: To expand. This is why we don't, for example, use forced labour to make people work off debts. Slavery is bad.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has a lot more potential for harm than just abortion rights. What about people who reject traditional prenatal care and birthing methods? For example, it could easily be expanded to include forcing a mother to give birth in a hospital, if she has been insisting on a home birth. The possibilities really are endless.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or criminaly charging someone for "risky" behaviour like running or skiing or anything else some doctor decides is "risky". Having a drink, smoking, not eating "right"...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this becomes palatable on the govt. level, I wonder how likely the VA's are to start forcing treatment for many of thier patients who refuse to die in a hospital. Many of the veterans I know and grew up with believe the VA to be a bit of a death trap, the longer you spend there the less chance you have of getting out, better to suffer than wither.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
post-reform, the va has hogher satisfaction and care quality than seen by those privately insured in America.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
