SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rambi who wrote (78658)11/5/2003 6:42:25 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
This seems on the surface to be a fairly well balanced presentation of some of the issues.

womensissues.about.com

the religious tolerance site where it originates, apparently, tends IME to be fairly liberal but also fair.

I'm particularly interested in the citation, though not a direct quote and not sourced, that Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X.

But the article goes on to note that not all doctors have this level of ability, and not all women have access to or seek the best care.

I also found interesting the decision of the American College Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who you would think would know what they were talking about.

"A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12.

It seems that the issue is complex. Which is no news to anybody, I guess.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News