[ad_1]
But many doctors and abortion rights advocates oppose this Articles are not clear And Not enough To protect pregnant women, as well as medical professionals. And history shows that they are probably right.
The problem is how to define a medical emergency – and who can define it. before Roe v. Wade, most states allow abortion in medical emergencies or necessary situations. But many doctors, nurses and midwives have been convicted of performing abortions after the legal system rejected their claims of medical necessity, court records show. Prosecutors, judges, and juries decide what is medically necessary—not doctors and patients—leaving it to the whims of the legal system for doctors to exercise their best medical judgment.
For example, in 1921, Bellevue Duncan, a married 23-year-old mother of two, married a doctor in Jefferson City, Herbert E. Johnson wanted an abortion. Typhoid fever left her very thin and bedridden. She was unable to take care of her two children. Her husband agreed that she could not safely give birth, so the couple visited Johnson, who agreed that she was not safe and performed the procedure. Unfortunately, the abortion resulted in infection and bleeding, which required treatment, leading to Johnson’s arrest for a botched abortion.
Allegations that abortions during this period lead to infection or death often refer to how the authorities treat doctors — although state differences in abortion laws theoretically protect them when they believe an abortion is medically necessary. In general, when abortions are performed safely, prosecutors either don’t know about the procedures or choose to look the other way because there is no harm to the patient. But when it came to complexity, it was a different story.
Johnson insisted that Duncan was “so anemic and so weak” that an abortion was necessary. At trial, the State called three other doctors to testify about who else. J. Jose — who previously cared for Duncan but hadn’t seen her in more than a year — testified that she was “in excellent health” after taking care of Duncan after her surgery and that the abortion was not necessary for her health. She told the jury that “a young woman in a family … as a rule is more anxious … some women are more anxious the more they are married,” so her testimony about her health was unreliable. Although Jose said there is “no set rule” for judging when an abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life, Duncan described her concerns about her health as a sign of “delusion.” To corroborate Jose’s testimony, two more doctors testified about Duncan’s health — even though they never examined her. They did this based on Jose’s doctor’s name and the report that she felt better after being treated for the infection. In addition, Duncan had already given birth to two children without complications, so the three doctors said she could not have suffered a life-threatening emergency during her third pregnancy.
Despite Duncan and her husband testifying about her failing health for months before the abortion, and Johnson saying she was unwell, a jury found the doctor guilty of aggravated abortion, and the state Supreme Court upheld his conviction.
Ultimately, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Duncan lacked credibility to determine that her welfare was related to her pregnancy. They agreed with prosecutors that her illness was “illusory” and that her ill health was a “delusion”. He also suggests that Johnson may have had a reason to lie about Duncan’s health to save himself from a hefty fine, but Jose refuses.
This case showed how doctors can easily distinguish between the line between an emergency and a medical emergency, which puts a doctor at legal risk of abortion. Courts, despite their lack of medical expertise, were able to determine where the line stood. These cases have exposed how courts cannot easily rely on the judgment of a doctor who, after examining the patient, has determined that her illness warrants an abortion. And as Jose said in the Johnson trial, there weren’t always clear guidelines for courts to follow.
Today, states are trying to define more clearly what constitutes a medical emergency in their bans. For example, the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services says it’s such an emergency. “Based on a rational medical decision, a condition that complicates the health of a pregnant woman, in order to avoid the death of the pregnant woman, requires an immediate abortion or a delay in pregnancy that poses a high risk.” Irreversible damage to the main body function of a pregnant woman. If the state doctor’s medical judgment is reasonable, they need not be afraid.
But while politicians believe this definition is clear, physicians argue that making such medical judgments is more complicated than many politicians understand. Doctor Lisa Harris was surprised “How close death must be“To meet the requirements under the Missouri definition. Is the likelihood or likelihood of future serious harm sufficient?”
History tells us that this lack of transparency means that judges and juries decide what constitutes a medical emergency, not doctors. And that can cause doctors to hesitate to act, putting patients at risk. That’s why the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists argued before the Supreme Court that banning abortions “forces clinicians to make an impossible choice between honoring their ethical obligations and following the law.” As long as doctors have to worry about potential legal ramifications, they remain in a quagmire that has dire consequences for some women.
[ad_2]
Source link
