quote:State health officials on Wednesday shut down a Birmingham abortion clinic after investigating a complaint that a woman was told she was six weeks pregnant and was given an abortion-inducing drug, then delivered a 6-pound, 4-ounce stillborn child at a hospital.
quote:The suspension order said a patient went to Summit on Feb. 20 and received an ultrasound administered by a non-physician, in violation of state rules for such facilities. She was told by a Summit staff member she was six weeks pregnant. "She was almost certainly in the third trimester and near term," Williamson said.
The same day, the clinic gave her a dose of Mifeprex, or RU-486, an abortion-inducing drug, also without a physician administering it as required. "What's clear here is that it wasn't used appropriately," Williamson said.
The patient had a "critical and dangerously high" blood pressure reading of 182/129 at the clinic, the suspension order said. "That in and of itself would have demanded immediate medical attention," Williamson said.
Instead, the staff went ahead with the medical abortion.
quote:On Feb. 26, the patient went to the emergency room at a Birmingham hospital "with the head of a baby protruding" and delivered a "stillborn, macerated, six pound, four ounce baby," according to the suspension order.
quote:Summit has been a licensed abortion provider in Birmingham since 1981.
One of its doctors, Malachy DeHenre, was suspended in 2004 after one of his Summit Medical Center patients died in 2003. The Alabama State Board of Medical Examiners concluded DeHenre practiced medicine in a way to "endanger the health of patients" and committed "repeated malpractice."
I know the details on this DeHenre case - there were more victims of his malpractice than just the woman listed in this article, and DeHenre also lost his license to practice in three other states besides Alabama.
The state health department issued a more detailed report Friday on the closing of Summit Medical Center, saying that other women received abortions without the presence of a doctor, in addition to the woman who delivered a 6-pound, 4-ounce stillborn child.
"Four of 10 sampled patients did not have a physician present," said Dr. Don Williamson, state health officer. "There were multiple violations of rules over multiple days."
Besides the woman who went to a hospital and had a stillborn infant, there were five patients whose records do not show that a determination was made on fetal viability.
"The rules require that viability be determined, and that a notation be made in the medical records," Williamson said. "In five other patients it was not documented."
State law requires that abortion clinics begin testing for fetal viability in the 20th week.
What a tragedy. All I can say is thank goodness this place is shut down now.
Wait - I do have something else to say - how do you miss a term, 6 lb infant on an ultrasound? I've had many ultrasounds in my time, both for pregnancy, and diagnostic ones and I am pretty darn sure that a term baby is fairly easy to see. And with a blood pressure like that, why didn't they send her for treatment of her BP instead of going ahead? There are so many things that went wrong with this case, at least we can be thankful that the woman survived.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes me sadder is the inevitable slanting of this event by pro-life groups to further their cause.
It is a very good thing this place was shut down, though - I bet places this irresponsible narrow the gap between a clinic and a coat hanger in the minds of many.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only how could the technician miss a 6lb baby on an ultrasound, but how did the woman get to the third trimester without knowing she'd been pregnant for more than six weeks?
I'm guessing there was some deliberate "not knowing" involved. Possibly on both sides.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with eros on this one. Of course the murder of (at this point) babies is a horrible thing, but the worst part is that this will be fodder for the myriad of pro-lifers who think all pro-choicers are heartless babykillers. Considering the majority political leaning in Alabama, I'd imagine it was hard enough to find somewhere to get a safe, legal abortion before this. I wonder what will be in store for women not wanting to turn thier bodies/lives over to another being.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder what will be in store for women not wanting to turn thier bodies/lives over to another being.
I wonder what will be in store for all those unborn children who don't want to be chopped up into little pieces in all those clinics that remain open.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ultimately, it sounds like this place may lose its license permanently. That may be the only way for the state to ensure that repetition of the violations doesn't occur.
That won't stop abortions in the area, assuming this place wasn't the only provider of that service. It's no victory for pro-life movements.
It does give some ammunition to the charge that at least some of these clinics are run not so much as medical facilities and more like a cash cow for their owners & partners.
If it's happening here, why not in other places...right?
Would greater medical/government oversight of abortion clinics be a bad thing?
But, yeah, I sort of have to agree that it's more than a little odd that a woman wouldn't know she's in or approaching her 3rd trimester. If the techs at this place were trained to give a nod & wink to patient's lies and go ahead with procedures even if they're not strictly "by the books" I can sure as heck see this kind of thing happening.
The problem is the staff people involved were undoubtedly not trained or caring enough to look for the contraindications that would've stopped them from doing a medically dangerous thing to this woman. Or, they are under a lot of pressure to hit some numeric target for "productivity..."
And, even if (or though) she was lying about her stage of pregnancy, she probably didn't go in there hoping to have someone do something that might kill her too.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cut the crap? You're the one who scare-quoted "want." Why did you do that if you weren't playing word games? We don't know that infants want anything either, but we wouldn't jump over someone saying they don't want to die.
You're the on who said that the fact that some people might use this incident as propoganda is worse than the fact that a baby was murdered. Don't tell me to cut the crap. That's crap that needs to be cut. Not me preventing you from twisting my meaning.
Here's the quote where you said propoganda was worse than murder:
quote:Of course the murder of (at this point) babies is a horrible thing, but the worst part is that this will be fodder for the myriad of pro-lifers who think all pro-choicers are heartless babykillers.
posted
edit: You know, screw it. I'm not going to do this. Continuing this argument is going to make me angrier, and I'll probably end up getting violent. And I only have one pillow, and it's already lumply enough.
Here it goes: we argue, we disagree, we escalate, we still disagree, others get involved, we still disagree, and I leave and get forgetful-drunk because I have little enough faith left in humanity as it is.
quote:There was some talking past going on. But it wasn't mutual, that's for-damn sure.
I didn't think so, either.
quote:You are talking past each other and this isn't going to result in anything but more bad feelings.
The very first reply in this thread jumped to the political aspects, and, in doing so, stated that the poster was more saddened by the possible use of this incident by political opponents than by the death of a 6 lb 4 oz. child who, if delivered normally, would almost certainly have survived.
If people want to throw out sloganeering, I'm not going to be shy about responding. When people tell me to "cut the crap," I'm not going to tolerate it. And when someone decides to mediate but doesn't acknowledge the difference in the underlying posts, I'm not going to be too persuaded.
As it is, PL has said she's done, so I'm done. But I am most emphatically not saying I will not respond to future posts that place a greater value on the political outcome than a "murder[ed] bab[y]."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't call this a simple news story. It's someone's dead baby. Emotions are bound to heat up, no matter whose politics are involved.
It sounds like this clinic was already in the business of making money on other people's fear and desperation. Which is pretty disgusting in and of itself. The fact that they're doing so in a field where the lives of viable human beings are hanging in the balance is frightening.
How did anyone justify running a business this way? Did they just blind themselves to the consequences? They must have ... I can't imagine someone picturing a dead baby as the consequence of their decisions and still moving forward with them.
I hope we see more than just license-losing from this. Jack McCoy would prosecute these people for second-degree murder.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm still confused on the whole "she didn't realize she was carrying around a 6 pound baby" thing. I'm guessing that fact, in combination with the blood pressure thing, that she must have been quite obese.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cynical side of me speculates that the woman in this case decided she didn't want to be pregnant after all, knew she was likely past the legal date to abort and was relieved when the case worker gave her RU486, thinking it would solve her problem safely.
I hope that the cynical side of me is really, REALLY wrong.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to just add fuel to the fire, but this clinic is not unknown to me. My husband used to work at the station that made runs to this clinic, he's taken more than one woman from the clinic to the hospital.
He also was one of the people who filed a complaint against Dr. DeHenre, the one mentioned who lost his license after a woman died, and he testified in the license review board hearings. The reason my husband filed the complaint was not because the woman he came to was bleeding to death - after all, every surgical procedure carries some risk. The reason he complained was because the first thing the clinic did when he arrived was tell him to take his patient out through the back door so the newspeople and protestors out front wouldn't see her.
My husband refused, because what they wanted was to lower a woman in critical condition down a small flight of fire escape stairs, instead of safely taking an elevator to the first floor. They were far more concerned about their reputation than they were the life of that woman.
As for women getting abortions elsewhere, to my knowledge there is only one other clinic open in the Birmingham area. If I'm not mistaken, Summit was by far the largest provider of abortions in the state.
And yet despite multiple complaints and more than one dead woman (the one mentioned in the article was not the only one) not to mention several other women who were disfigured (the one Wes complained about had to have an emergency hysterectomy to save her life) it took more than three years before they even suspended DeHenre's license.
What makes me sick is not just what has happened at this clinic, but that it's taken so long for someone to act.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Dagonee: The very first reply in this thread jumped to the political aspects, and, in doing so, stated that the poster was more saddened by the possible use of this incident by political opponents than by the death of a 6 lb 4 oz. child who, if delivered normally, would almost certainly have survived.
...removed middle of post, as it's not what I'm responding to...
As it is, PL has said she's done, so I'm done. But I am most emphatically not saying I will not respond to future posts that place a greater value on the political outcome than a "murder[ed] bab[y]."
Why is it wrong to imagine that the political outcome of this situation, which will affect thousands of lives, is more important than a life (a contentious word, but whatever) that has already been lost?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jux, I think that statement came across especially badly in this thread because so much of this case already involves people treating an individual's life as though it were a secondary concern. To money, to politics, to reputation ... whatever.
What would it be like to be the guy standing over a dying woman and insisting that she be taken out the back for fear of someone seeing her? Is it that different from the way someone feels when they're trying to hide the body of a dead hooker? Should the person involved be held in much less contempt?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sometimes doesn't bother me when politics is more of a concern than a single life. So much of politics is crap that I think people forget that it does actually affect the quality of many people's lives, and even those lives themselves.
But, if you're saying it's a wrong time, wrong place kind of thing, that's fine.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Yes, and those are sad, too. Please tell me you aren't suggesting that one justifies the other.
You are the one who suggested it by ignoring one side of it, which was why I made sure both fields were in play. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Like Dagonee, I'm very angered by the fact that one side gets to take free shots, but when the other one jumps in to defend ourselves, we're being contentious and argumentative... and the people who come out with their hair on fire telling people to "cut the crap" get to flee the thread acting all hurt as if they were the ones being attacked. As far as I am concerned they are getting off much easier than they warranted.
Don't poke a sleeping bear if all you have is a popgun, folks.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Yeah, I'm still confused on the whole "she didn't realize she was carrying around a 6 pound baby" thing. I'm guessing that fact, in combination with the blood pressure thing, that she must have been quite obese.
Not necessarily. It's rare, but some women just don't show the way that you would expect. If her cycles are always irregular and/or non-existant and she didn't gain much weight it's possible that she really didn't know. Some women (even though this is very rare) even have their cycles all the way through their pregnancy.
Of course she could also have been lying, I don't know.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm so glad this place has been shut down. I hope the revocation of licenses goes futher than just a few states. Belle, I recall that you mentioned there were things going on that Wes knew through his work but couldn't (and wouldn't) speak about publicly, both for professional and legal reasons.
What a horrid story.
I don't see how this works as ammunition for either side, though. The more reputable OB/Gyns who would never be involved in this state of affairs have -- in many cases -- stopped doing abortions, or they have gotten old enough that they have to retire. One of my professors was in this case -- stayed working much longer than he would have otherwise, well into retirement years, because he knew that when he left, there would not be a good, professional, sane, non-seedy, non-unscrupulous provider left in the area.
That is to say, the current state of affairs is untenable -- however it ends up working out.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I agree that this place probably should've been shut down a long time ago. Events like this one in the article don't just happen as a one-shot "oops, we goofed" kind of thing. It takes repetive relaxation of the rules, a fair amount of time for a lax corporate culture to permeate the place, and ultimately a kind of 'look the other way' attitude to take over. Sadly, I suspect this place probably lost a lot of good nurses and techs over the years -- people who could get a job elsewhere and who ultimately probably had concerns for their own professional reputation, or even credentials.
Really NOBODY needs this kind of crap to go on. I mean, really, isn't one of the biggest arguments against making abortion illegal that we'll end up back in the days of back-alley abortions from unlicensed providers? If the level of care in licensed clinics is going to fall to that "back-alley" level, it sure would seem to take away one of the arguments in favor of easily accessible legal abortion; i.e., that it's safer and women are going to have them anyway, so let's make sure they have a good, safe way to have it...
Dag, I meant no disrespect to you. I know this topic tends to polarize Hatrack and bring out the nasty verbiage like few other topics do around here. At any rate, I wasn't trying to BLAME anyone, but to ask people to step away from the fray.
I also wasn't analyzing who said what first, so, again, it wasn't an attempt to afix blame for the thread going in a bad direction.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Krankykat, I understand that this is a difficult topic for most people, and I don't think that I can give a response to your comment that is helpful to the discussion.
I do have an appreciation for the sentiment that (I believe) underlies it, and I don't doubt the strength of your beliefs on the matter.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if killing a 6-pound unborn child is so monsterous, how small does an unborn child have to be before killing it can be a good idea rather than monsterous?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are the one who suggested it by ignoring one side of it, which was why I made sure both fields were in play. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Fair enough. For what it's worth, I'm sorry; I honestly thought what I said was as tame as I could make it.
quote:So, if killing a 6-pound unborn child is so monsterous, how small does an unborn child have to be before killing it can be a good idea rather than monsterous?
This question's been answered ad nauseum already. The answers can't have changed much, on either the pro-life or pro-choice side.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there has to be some good to come from acknowledging that we hear one another, as well, even if passions are running high and the discussion isn't moving forward smoothly.
My mother felt very strongly about this, as I remember. She worked as a nurse with a local physician who did "appendectomies" sometimes. This was way back when -- she was born in the 1920s. Anyway, although she didn't participate in the procedures, she would go back to get all of the blood and tissue from the trash and bury it out behind the clinic.
I don't think it happened often -- maybe five or six times? but that wasn't made explicit to me , I think -- but the memory stayed with her quite strongly. It was part of the way she defined herself. [both as someone who did not participate and who gave reverence when she believed so strongly in its appropriateness]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eros, I think that was a really classy reply and I appreciate it. I apologize if I came off as specifically critical of you... I was definitely aiming broader.
I think you know I dig you, so please take this as an attempt to communicate and not to cast aspersions or blame. I'm trying to come up with a comparable statement on another topic so you can see how it sounded. The best I can come up with is:
Imagine someone watching the Rodney King beating video and remarking: "You know, what's even sadder is the people in the pro-affirmative action camp are gonna make political hay outta this..."
It's not a direct parallel, but it's pretty close-- one real life incident, harming one real life person being used to highlight what a certain political group views as a problem... and then having someone identify that as the real tragedy of the situation.
Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this..."
I'm hoping that explains how shockingly insensitive and dismissive things were getting. and it wasn't just Eros's initial statement, but a couple of people seconding it, and one of them rather nastily.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eros, I think that was a really classy reply and I appreciate it. I apologize if I came off as specifically critical of you... I was definitely aiming broader.
Thanks. We've been slowly losing class & respect here (and I've been part of the problem, I'll admit); maybe it's time we offered up a good re-injection (in that vein, I appreciate your posts, CT).
quote:Imagine someone watching the Rodney King beating video and remarking: "You know, what's even sadder is the people in the pro-affirmative action camp are gonna make political hay outta this..."
It's not a direct parallel, but it's pretty close-- one real life incident, harming one real life person being used to highlight what a certain political group views as a problem... and then having someone identify that as the real tragedy of the situation.
Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this..."
I'm hoping that explains how shockingly insensitive and dismissive things were getting. and it wasn't just Eros's initial statement, but a couple of people seconding it, and one of them rather nastily.
I definitely see where you're coming from here, and think those are mostly valid parallels. Here's where I think my views are diverging:
1) Context is everything. This is where I'm seeing my initial comment was a mistake; Hatrack has no small number of very vocally pro-life people. I'd either forgotten that momentarily or subconsciously knew it and, just as subconsciously, felt the need to jab.
2) This issue (and the other two you quoted) feel very far away to me; not being a woman, black or gay, I don't feel these issues are as close to me as someone who is a woman, black and/or gay might. With that in mind, NONE of the "what's even sadder..." statements really bothers me.
3) In all three cases, I don't know any of the people involved, which further distances me. I have a certain amount of empathy but I'm not the kind of person who can take something like this and internalize it to that extent. As a result, the political and social implications are much larger in my mind than the individual incident. Were the individual incident closer in my sphere of everyday life (e.g. if this occured in the town I live in, or someone I knew was involved), I'm sure my reaction would differ to the extent that I'd probably be as upset and defensive as many people here are/were.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course the murder of (at this point) babies is a horrible thing, but the worst part is that this will be fodder for the myriad of pro-lifers who think all pro-choicers are heartless babykillers.
"The worst part?"
Do you honestly feel that the way an extreme fringe group of anti-abortion activists will portray pro-choice supporters is WORSE than the death of a child?
Or was this just a slip of phrase?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you honestly feel that the way an extreme fringe group of anti-abortion activists will portray pro-choice supporters is WORSE than the death of a child?
Or was this just a slip of phrase?
Check the replies thereafter, Scott - pretty vinegary, but they address this exact point.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not a direct parallel, but it's pretty close-- one real life incident, harming one real life person being used to highlight what a certain political group views as a problem... and then having someone identify that as the real tragedy of the situation.
Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this
That isn't equivalent at all. It isn't fair to compare pro-choice people to violent bigots.
posted
As a pro-lifer, my only real reaction to that, politically, was a cynical "and they think it would be safer if it were legal" thought (which has no basis in anything as it's one clinic out of hundreds).
But, really, that is troubling Belle. It is an isolated incident in your area or is it indicative of the medical community in general? I feel like a place like that should have been noticed/shut down earlier.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
pro-choice people saying the political ramifications are "worse" than the baby's death = opponents of hate-crimes legislation saying the political ramifications are "worse" than Matthew Shepherd's murder
But I think you knew that. Personally, I'm pretty tired of people taking offense at analogies in these debates. "How dare you mention my cause in the same breath as [insert loathsome thing]! Take that back right now!" etc. Analogies exist to help people understand one another. Taking offense just puts off understanding and makes the argument more contentious.
posted
I thought Jim's comparison was a fair one, actually, for what he was comparing it for, which was not to equate bigots with pro-lifers.
At least that isn't what I got out of it.
Ero, I thought that was a good explaination of your views as well.
I was taken aback by the initial post, to be honest, and I am pro-choice myself, so it wasn't all about pro-life people being oversensitive, either. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ooh... thought of another... (Matthew Shepherd, I think the guy's name was, for some reason forgive if I'm off) ... Imagine, in the wake the murder of the young gay man in Wyoming, someone saying "you know, the really sad thing is those gay rights and hate crime activists are gonna use this..."
The way I'm reaading this: In the wake of the murder of a baby, some pro-choicer is saying, "It's really sad that those pro-life activists are going to use this."
Which means that pro-lifers are NOT being equated with the bigots. They are instead being equated with those fighting for equal rights.
And I also wasn't getting all riled up and offended about it. I was just saying that I don't think it's a fair comparison. That's all.
quote:That isn't equivalent at all. It isn't fair to compare pro-choice people to violent bigots.
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: but the worst part is that this will be fodder for the myriad of pro-lifers who think all pro-choicers are heartless babykillers.
It wasn't fair to say a vast number of anti-abortion people think the pro-abortion people are heartless baby killers, either.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to figure out why this thread angers me so much. I think it's the whole "don't poke a sleeping bear" bullshit. The specific line, and the general attitude.
posted
Yeah. That's what's disgusting TL. Not someone specifically saying that potential propoganda is worse than the murder of a baby.
And before I have to hear it again from someone else saying the use of "life" is contentious, murder of a baby was how the person comparing it to the potential propoganda put it. So, for the purpose of analyzing that statement, it was a murder.
For that matter, Juxtapose's little parenthetical about the use of the word "life" is flat out ridiculous, considering that it wasn't the anti-abortion people who injected politics and the particular language of their cause into the thread.
And now your "anger[ed] so much" because Jim-Me had the decency to point out the incredible double standard attempting to be imposed here.
I appreciate CT's dedication to rationale discussion and understanding the other side, and respect her choice not to engage in a discussion that she thinks won't be productive.
But that's not the only acceptable way to respond to provocative posts (nor do I think CT in any way implied it to be).
Let's get one thing perfectly clear. As long as people feel entitled to throw out one-line summations of complex issues which ignore the actual point of dispute, I will continue to respond in ways that highlight this behavior when I choose to do so. I will not allow standards of discourse to be imposed (by social pressure or otherwise) only after I have decided to respond. If people have a serious problem with this kind of discourse, then they can say something about it before people holding the targeted beliefs respond.
I have proven time and time again that I am capable of engaging in nuanced discourse on controversial issues in attempts to identify the areas of agreement and precisely define where the disagreement lies. But it takes at least two participants acting in good faith to do so. I am not going to be limited to that kind of discussion when other people feel free to toss off knowingly provocative statements.
So you don't like the "don't poke a sleeping bear" BS, TL? Too damn bad. I'm sick of hearing the whining that results when people don't sit back and take the initiating BS in silence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
