California is waiting for you.Wow, you need to practice in health care. BTW, im still waiting on patients to transfer to a higher level of care for needed services. When we calll our transfer center we get put on a wait list now. Sometimes 30 deep. That's in addition to all the admits in the ER. Maybe it's better in other places but not where I practice. Do you practice medicine?
The transferring physician could be held liable by the state and lose their license. We're running into weird stuff in ID too. Oncology docs are refusing pregnant patients with cancer because chemo can induce an abortion. Talked to 2 different oncologists that wanted to open practice in ID. Now they are not.
Keep trying for those beds.
....Oncology docs are refusing pregnant patients with cancer because chemo can induce an abortion. Talked to 2 different oncologists that wanted to open practice in ID. Now they are not.
I am in a blue state. There's a nationwide shortage of physicians and nurses. I absolutely love where I work. It has its nuances and quirks but it's a wonderfully supportive environment. I work between two hospitals. Consequently, I get to see how difficult it is to transfer patients from one facility to another.California is waiting for you.
We would love to have you. You can practice medicine the way it is meant to be practiced.
It doesn't have to be CA. There are a bunch of blue states just like CA. All you have to do is move.
Your just going to get ran into the ground. Staff are leaving red states, and as they do the remaining staff get pushed harder and harder. It is mainly the nursing staff that are getting hit the hardest, but we are getting everything.
You don't want to be the last to leave, you will be driven straight into the ground by the endless pile of the dying.
Of course I practice medicine. I've transferred many patients out of state mostly for various organ transplant services. I've also received many patients from out of state hospitals for similar reasons. I've done this both in my current state and in completely different regions of the country where I used to live. Sometimes it takes 2-4 weeks to get a bed. Sometimes it takes less than a week. It's really quite variable.Wow, you need to practice in health care. BTW, im still waiting on patients to transfer to a higher level of care for needed services. When we calll our transfer center we get put on a wait list now. Sometimes 30 deep. That's in addition to all the admits in the ER. Maybe it's better in other places but not where I practice. Do you practice medicine?
The transferring physician could be held liable by the state and lose their license. We're running into weird stuff in ID too. Oncology docs are refusing pregnant patients with cancer because chemo can induce an abortion. Talked to 2 different oncologists that wanted to open practice in ID. Now they are not.
Keep trying for those beds.
As you state, it's standard of care to offer an abortion when chemo is being given as chemo causes major developmental problems. Most chemotherapy is actually so bad that often they will offer egg harvesting as well so the woman can have a child in the future potentially. If you're in a state where abortion is illegal and are working as an oncologist, likely you won't be able to practice with pregnant women and will need to refer them out of state for an abortion + chemo. I don't think ethically you can give chemo when there is a developing fetus (mother may have life threatening pregnancy related complications from the fetus, and the fetus will be malformed ).One more example that references the oncologists. Let's say a pregnant individual is 6-8 weeks pregnant and gets AML. Untreated AML has a life expectancy of about 5 months and outcomes get worse and worse the longer it's left untreated. Induction chemotherapy is teratogenic and will cause an abortion. It is standard of care in every other state to have the individual have an abortion before starting treatment for individual diagnosed in the first trimester. 2nd and 3rd trimesters have potentially better outcomes for the fetus, but the complication rate remains high and there is no standard consensus for timing of chemotherapy vs risk for fetal survival. Fetal complications remain at roughly 16% though fetal survival is about 87%. Maternal survival is only 30%.
How I treat leukemia during pregnancy
Leukemia in pregnancy remains a challenging therapeutic prospect. The prevalence is low at ∼1 in 10 000 pregnancies, and as a result data are limited to smashpublications.orgAcute Myeloid Leukemia in Pregnancy
Introduction: The management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in pregnancy remains a daunting clinical challenge for oncologists, obstetricians, patients, aashpublications.org
You should read Texas' bill.As you state, it's standard of care to offer an abortion when chemo is being given as chemo causes major developmental problems. Most chemotherapy is actually so bad that often they will offer egg harvesting as well so the woman can have a child in the future potentially. If you're in a state where abortion is illegal and are working as an oncologist, likely you won't be able to practice with pregnant women and will need to refer them out of state for an abortion + chemo. I don't think ethically you can give chemo when there is a developing fetus (mother may have life threatening pregnancy related complications from the fetus, and the fetus will be malformed ).
There are many treatments that are not offered to pregnant woman because of potential fetal complications. Elective abortions are a part of obstetric care simply because there are hundreds of conditions where you are not allowed to be pregnant either as part of the disease or as part of the treatment. This is why it's maddening that politicians are mucking around with what are straightforward medical decisions.
I am seeing the problem there.Yes, if a woman leaves the state for an abortion, then comes home, her nosy neighbor may turn her in and collect $10,000.
Has it actually happened yet? I'd like to see a test case on this matter and see where it goes.Yes, if a woman leaves the state for an abortion, then comes home, her nosy neighbor may turn her in and collect $10,000.
Yes, dumb bitch thinking she has bodily autonomy and sovereignty
Her body belongs to God. Her body belongs to Government. Her body belongs to Greg.
The governor of TexasJust to clarify. Which Greg are we talking about? Her stepfather, or the pastor at her church?
Do you mean funds to help them move out of shithole states entirely, or just to obtain their necessary healthcare? If the latter: National Network of Abortion Funds. The former seems, uh, pretty ambitious.I am seeing the problem there.
Women's rights groups, etc, need to organize a fund to help those in need with the process of relocation.
I don't think so. This seems like a straightforward violation of federal law. You can't pass a state law that regulates interstate commerce. Healthcare procedures in other states is interstate commerce. It'd be like texas banning someone from traveling to get a colonoscopy in NJ.Yes, if a woman leaves the state for an abortion, then comes home, her nosy neighbor may turn her in and collect $10,000.
I don't think so. This seems like a straightforward violation of federal law. You can't pass a state law that regulates interstate commerce. Healthcare procedures in other states is interstate commerce. It'd be like texas banning someone from traveling to get a colonoscopy in NJ.
I read the law. State laws by definition apply to activities within the state. People in texas aren't being arrested for smoking marijuana whilst on vacation in california. They're not being arrested for seeing prostitutes in Nevada or in Amsterdam. If you read the bit about where the case is to be tried, it says you have to first try it in the county the event occurred which is technically in another state.
Plenty of texas women had have had out of state abortions since the law has been passed. To my knowledge there has only been one instance of it being used and it was a symbolic case which was thrown out due to lack of standing or something like that.
I don't think so. This seems like a straightforward violation of federal law. You can't pass a state law that regulates interstate commerce. Healthcare procedures in other states is interstate commerce. It'd be like texas banning someone from traveling to get a colonoscopy in NJ.
I read the law. State laws by definition apply to activities within the state. People in texas aren't being arrested for smoking marijuana whilst on vacation in california. They're not being arrested for seeing prostitutes in Nevada or in Amsterdam. If you read the bit about where the case is to be tried, it says you have to first try it in the county the event occurred which is technically in another state.
Plenty of texas women had have had out of state abortions since the law has been passed. To my knowledge there has only been one instance of it being used and it was a symbolic case which was thrown out due to lack of standing or something like that.
Texas Supreme Court just ruled on her case. They said the lower court was wrong for allowing her to get an abortion. They said an unviable fetus must be carried to term
How much more information do you need to vote out EVERY pro life Republican?
Why would doctors risk felony criminal charges by a overzealous DA who disagreed with their medical assessment that her life was in danger? The Republican's in Texas wrote the law in such a vague way to not make it clear under what circumstances a abortion is legal.Something doesn't feel right about this story.
According to that same Texas Supreme Court ruling, she never needed to file a court order, her doctor could have simply done the abortion had they felt her life was in danger. So why didn't they?
Because how are doctors/hospitals supposed to know who to treat? Paxton already stated he would prosecute any doctor who performed the abortion. This was BEFORE the Texas SC ruling.Something doesn't feel right about this story.
According to that same Texas Supreme Court ruling, she never needed to file a court order, her doctor could have simply done the abortion had they felt her life was in danger. So why didn't they?
Instead they chose to make it a very public case and now she is also very publicly and dramatically stating she is "fleeing the state" opening her up to further legal jeopardy in regards to bounty laws or whatever else they decide to throw at her.
Huh?
Just feels like someone gave this poor woman bad advice and/or is trying to use her as a political football and it backfired. Just feels really weird to open your medical history up like this to national scrutiny when it sounds like it wasn't necessary in the first place, and especially in a state where you know exactly what the outcome will be regardless.