I agree with this. People tend to reduce it down to some black and white scenario but its never that easy.
You need to understand this. Each case is unique and absolutely no one should have to spend obscene amounts of time, effort and emotions to try and keep a fetus alive with deformities incompatible with life just so you can feel self-righteous.
Hence why I said "or a big non-sequitur," earlier, since that interpretation would be answering a question completely unrelated to the one that was asked of him. But even that requires several conservative favourable interpretations to not be seen as advocating for euthanasia which is illegal.
The new bill would NOT have removed requirements 2 and 3. If there is evidence of viability, then you resuscitate the neonate. The governor's comments reflect what was already law and what was proposed to be changed.
You need to understand this. Each case is unique and absolutely no one should have to spend obscene amounts of time, effort and emotions to try and keep a fetus alive with deformities incompatible with life just so you can feel self-righteous.
How much hubris does it take to think that you who know nothing of each individual case knows the one correct answer in each case better than the parents and doctor who’s responsibility it is to determine what is best.
The brouhaha here is that, granted, mental health should never have been a criteria for a late term abortion in the first place, but the safeguards in place like requiring three physicians and meeting the criteria of "substantially and irremediably" meant that you would have better chances passing through the eye of a needle than receiving a late term abortion for the likes of "anxiety."
And now the proposed law is that any impairment of mental health regardless of magnitude or severity is sufficient, and you only need a single physician to sign off. Sure, I think it's still an unlikely event but now we're at least in the realm of possibility. That's such an obviously low bar to pass that it's eminently reasonable to oppose the bill. Whatever else you might think of Gilbert, he's right to draw attention to that.
Regarding the governor, if we give him some extreme benefit of the doubt and accept that in reference to Gilbert's criticism he's only describing the way things currently are (albeit for an entirely different situation than the mental health example being discussed), then he really has no one to blame but himself for being so clumsy in his intellectual dishonesty that it isn't obvious he's only responding to his own straw man. If that's the case, he should come out and clarify his position, and maybe even give the original complaint a proper response.
If someone is DEAD, (newborn or sick person) by definition, they cannot be resuscitated. As per Wikipedia: "Resuscitation is the process of correcting physiological disorders (such as lack of breathing or heartbeat) in an acutely unwell patient." The person will die if resuscitation is unsuccessful, but you cannot resuscitate someone who is already dead,First off, it's up to the parents if a non-viable child, born DEAD (requiring resuscitation, in case you weren't sure what that word implies) gets revived. Just like it's up to an adult patient if they want to declare themselves a DNR, or family who have power of attorney, or a parent, when a patient who cannot advocate for themselves, is DEAD. In this case, clearly, the parents have the right to decide, since a DEAD newborn is mostly unable to make those kinds of decisions.
No interpretation here required. It. Is. The. Parent's. Decision. To. Revive. An. UNVIABLE, DEAD newborn.
Second, he states that it's up to the parents and the doctor afterwards.
Who else, exactly, should be involved, do you think? You? a boardroom full of suits? Mikhail Gorbechav's cousin's niece?
Thirdly, I'd like to offer my thanks and sincere pleasure in seeing right-wing auhtoritarians chiming in to scream about something that isn't actually happening, in any way shape or form, yet again. It's literally hysterical!
What group of VA physicians are advocating for "anxiety" to be a sufficient indication for a third trimester abortion?
What does "substantially and immediately" change about the statement "impair the mental or physical health of the woman?"
I don't think you're going to find board certified Virginia physicians that would advocate terminating a pregnancy at 39 weeks for "anxiety."
Furthermore, you ignore the importance of point 3 as it is an essential component to this law. If the neonate is viable, you resuscitate...
...So under the current (or proposed law), even if in the absurd example of a 39 week mother getting an abortion for anxiety, the physician is still obligated to resuscitate (of course we can quibble about the usage of shall and whether that applies both to available and utilized, or if it only applies to the first phrase, but I'm not a legal scholar). In the end, its laws that try to take a more sensible approach that gets misinterpreted because people aren't actually reading the text before making a judgement.
Lastly, listen to the question that is posed to the Governor in the interview Its not the same to what Gilbert was asking Tran. She does not offer the governor the extreme example of what Gilbert was asking.
If someone is DEAD, (newborn or sick person) by definition, they cannot be resuscitated. As per Wikipedia: "Resuscitation is the process of correcting physiological disorders (such as lack of breathing or heartbeat) in an acutely unwell patient." The person will die if resuscitation is unsuccessful, but you cannot resuscitate someone who is already dead,
None that I'm aware of, which still doesn't mean that you make it a legal basis for a late term abortion.
Which is analogous to saying that because no lawyers are advocating for duelling to be used as a tool for settling legal disputes we should shouldn't restrict the practice. Whether or not a physician would abort a late term viable fetus for something as inconsequential as anxiety has no bearing on whether or not we should give one the legal cover to do so. We shouldn't, obviously.
For substantially that means of sufficient magnitude. That in itself is somewhat subjective, but lends itself to a "reasonable person" legal threshold. The alternative of carte blanche allowance does not.
For irremediably (not immediately) that means impossible to correct, repair, or remedy. That's a fairly concrete, non-subjective constraint that absolutely affects the criteria.
But nowhere appears to be any proscription on aborting a viable late term fetus in the first place. So, in the context of a discussion on what the constraints should be placed on late term abortions it isn't at all relevant. If there's some additional meaning besides the literal text, let me know.
I think you need to listen again. The interchange between Gilbert and Tran is the actual topic.
There’s money to be made keeping brain dead people alive. Can’t let basic decency get in the way of medical profits.
Your statements is not congruent with medical law. Go read any state legislation regarding medical practice. It is very rare you will read "physicians shall not treat autism with mercury" or "essential oils cannot be used for treatment of pancreatic cancer."
I didn't ask for the definition of the words. I asked for how do those words "change about the statement 'impair the mental or physical health of the woman?'" This goes to what defines malpractice, and given your above statement, you need to revisit the differences in criminal law vs medical malpractice.
The current and proposed laws pretty clearly states that for an abortion to occur after the second trimester, all 3 conditions must be met. In addition, you have to understand what the procedures entail. Medical (meaning medication induced) abortions essential results in delivery of an intact fetus. Because partial birth abortions are banned at the federal and state level for Virginia, the remaining surgical options result in complete delivery of the fetus.
The Governor admits he wasn't there to hear the full exchange, so he cannot comment on it
He didn't know anything about an exchange about mental health, he wasn't there for it, and the interviewer didn't ask him.
I assure you that someone who hasn't breathed on their own or had blood circulation for 30 minutes, and is, uh, RESUSCITATED, was dead.If someone is DEAD, (newborn or sick person) by definition, they cannot be resuscitated. As per Wikipedia: "Resuscitation is the process of correcting physiological disorders (such as lack of breathing or heartbeat) in an acutely unwell patient." The person will die if resuscitation is unsuccessful, but you cannot resuscitate someone who is already dead,
Okay we will send you the bills.If the situation in terms of viability appears futile and continued treatment is merely delaying the inevitable, then of course not. Otherwise, absent the ability to obtain consent from the patient I'd advocate erring on the side of life.
All those other bad things are happening because God is punishing us for abortions. And gays.1. I did not vote for this guy.
2. I honestly dont care about abortions anymore. It seems to me this is a relatively minor issue compared to almost everything else going on now, like economics, crime, education, and healthcare as a whole.
You're the one conflating malpractice and standard of care with state law. You don't need to codify not treating autistic patients with autism with mercury because it's an obviously negligent treatment, and demonstrably so. On the other hand, drawing the line between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the mother is an entirely ethical question. There is no obviously negligent action unless you botch the procedure. Lowering the legal constraints under which a physician can perform an abortion (eg. removing the substantial and irremediably clause) is tangibly unique from your misfitting autism example. As vile as it may be, it isn't malpractice to abort a late term, viable fetus for mental health reasons if it's allowed by state law. You aren't harming the mother with a hypothetical mental health inspired abortion. It's merely following the guidelines of a statute that is lopsided in favour of one side's rights over another.
I agree that a late term, viable abortion taking place because of anxiety even if the bill passes is unlikely, but that's not because of standard of care, it's because you're going to have a hard time finding a physician cold hearted or ideologically possessed enough to perform the procedure in the first place. But just like the duelling lawyers, that doesn't mean we should make the situation legal.
No they don't. Look at D & E (non-intact) and Induction Abortion for example.
He said that because he wasn't there he couldn't speak for Tran, not that he was unaware of the contents of the exchange.
Look, he's the governor, it's a hot button issue, and he's going on talk radio. It's quite the stretch to think he didn't know the details of the exchange. He's not going to be that unprepared, or at least I would hope not. The topic of the conversation is the stink Gilbert raised about the bill. Now, it's possible he chose his words very poorly if you give him the benefit of the doubt so he's responding to his own straw man instead of the actual substance of Gilbert's case.
The concept of "circulatory death" has been generally replaced by the brain death definition."The Commission ultimately recommended a Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) which aimed to make the total brain standard into law in the states.20 This recommendation has been adopted by the American Bar Association and American Medical Association,21 and made into law in some form in all 50 states.22 The UDDA simply states: ’An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards’" Note that "circulatory death" is defined as IRREVERSIBLE cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, so if a person can be resuscitated, by this definition they were not dead. linkIt depends because there are two legal definitions for death, either circulatory or neurological. The former can be resuscitated, and that's what anyone talking about resuscitating a dead individual is referring to.
The concept of "circulatory death" has been generally replaced by the brain death definition."The Commission ultimately recommended a Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) which aimed to make the total brain standard into law in the states.20 This recommendation has been adopted by the American Bar Association and American Medical Association,21 and made into law in some form in all 50 states.22 The UDDA simply states: ’An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards’" Note that "circulatory death" is defined as IRREVERSIBLE cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, so if a person can be resuscitated, by this definition they were not dead. link
I used to work at a teaching hospital on patient monitors and the like. We used to switch off on areas of the hospital where you do rounds checking the equipment. My least favorite area to work in was Infant Special Care (baby ICU). Some kids would be there tortured for 6 to 8 months and never leave or make it out, but then they would eventually die. I have major issues with the whole "wow, we can get viability under 1 kilo now". Yea, but at what permanent cost.The horror, the horror.
Make that kid die in agony (or in a drugged coma) after as long a period of time that you can keep it alive. It's god's will.
I suggest you actually read the text of the bill proposed:
The new bill would NOT have removed requirements 2 and 3. If there is evidence of viability, then you resuscitate the neonate. The governor's comments reflect what was already law and what was proposed to be changed.