Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
"U.S. parents are given medical authority over their children for several reasons, according to Douglas S. Diekema, author of "Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention", published in the 2004 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics journal.
For one, parents are usually better situated to understand what their child needs and what the best option is to provide the most beneficial care for their child. There can be clashes between family members on what a child's best interests are but the American government generally believes parental decisions overrule that of others in the family. Parents are also allowed to raise their kids according to their own values and standards, and the government doesn't intrude on the family unit unless a child is in danger.
However, there are situations where doctors can disagree with a parent's decision if a child is in a severe medical dilemma. The parens patriae doctrine gives the state the right to intervene with a parent's decision when it's believed they are not acting in the best interest for the child's well-being.
According to the Legal Resource Library, this generally happens when:
The medical community is in agreement about the best treatment, where the expected outcome is a relatively good quality life If the child is at risk of serious harm If the child would die without the treatment Or if a parent is refusing consent
In heartbreaking situations where a child has a terminal illness where no treatment is beneficial, parents do have a right to refuse treatment and let nature take it's course. When multiple doctors are giving different options of treatment, parents have a right to choose which is best for their child."
Molly, The unfortunate reality is that the GOP does not care about the welfare of children much past getting them out of the womb... If they did they would not strive to cut healthcare for poor women, Early Childhood Education programs, Parenting education programs, foster care programs, etc.
And for some reason the GOP wants to focus on a teeny tiny number of very ill babies that are almost certain to die anyway. Because late term abortions only occur when things are really bad.
John, I find the article: “The Facts on the Born Alive Debate” troubling. In Minnesota 3 babies were born alive after an abortion and one received comfort care, one received no care and a third received no care due to a low APGAR score. I think the healthcare providers should be giving them the same care that non-aborted baby receives. It gives the impression that the baby is just left in a bassinet with no care until it dies. I’ll have to look through the other articles later. Thanks, Molly
Are all these folks who want to force this on the parent(s) and doctor(s) willing to pay the massive bills that would likely be incurred from ICU care of this very very sick child?
For the calendar year of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, three (3) abortion procedures resulting in a born-alive infant were reported. • In one instance, APGAR score was 1/1. No measures were taken and the infant did not survive. • In one instance, comfort care measures were provided as planned and the infant did not survive. • In one instance, no specific steps taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive.
I am not sure what a 1/1 score means, but it does not seem promising.
John, you keep mentioning the very sick child and those cases would be a gestation of 38 to 42 weeks.
But what I thought Ben Sasse was talking about was those cases when abortions are performed on healthy babies when they are viable like after 22 weeks gestation. If the abortion is botched and the baby is born alive they should be treated in the same way any other baby would be treated if it was born premature.
If a very sick baby is born alive during an abortion then it should be treated the same way a very sick baby is treated if it was born during a normal birth.
It seems to me that the regulation is very clear regarding the post-viability (ie 24 weeks) legal requirements. What else do you want?
"ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE:
- THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, - OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, - OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.
Also, what do you think of the fact that far more Mothers and Babies die from poor health care in the USA than failed abortions... And yet the GOP folks don't jump on that issue. :-(
And Lord knows providing Free High Quality Contraception to Low Income Women is a non-starter with the Religious Right.
In summary it looks like Ben's church thinks that the normal Presbytarians are a bunch sinners. It was odd that he worked at an ELCA University... We tend to be pretty accepting of everyone.
Now that I am more rested... I think this is a key statement...
"If a very sick baby is born alive during an abortion then it should be treated the same way a very sick baby is treated if it was born during a normal birth." Molly
Does this mean we need a new federal law to criminalize what happens after every birth occurs?
Why would one only put abortion doctors under the constant threat of additional federal prosecution when something goes wrong?
What are a parent(s) rights with regard to their new born baby and medical treatment choices?
VOX More Info
ReplyDeletehttps://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccadowns/2019/04/27/democratic-governors-oppose-bornalive-abortion-survivors-protection-acts-not-a-productive-use-of-time-n2545490
ReplyDeleteInteresting article.
Molly
Townhall Dem Govs
ReplyDeleteI prefer some real truthful discussion in my sources.
ReplyDeleteDo you have answers to my questions?
The Right sure does know how to play the emotions of folks who don't want to study up
On a related note
ReplyDelete"U.S. parents are given medical authority over their children for several reasons, according to Douglas S. Diekema, author of "Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention", published in the 2004 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics journal.
For one, parents are usually better situated to understand what their child needs and what the best option is to provide the most beneficial care for their child. There can be clashes between family members on what a child's best interests are but the American government generally believes parental decisions overrule that of others in the family. Parents are also allowed to raise their kids according to their own values and standards, and the government doesn't intrude on the family unit unless a child is in danger.
However, there are situations where doctors can disagree with a parent's decision if a child is in a severe medical dilemma. The parens patriae doctrine gives the state the right to intervene with a parent's decision when it's believed they are not acting in the best interest for the child's well-being.
According to the Legal Resource Library, this generally happens when:
The medical community is in agreement about the best treatment, where the expected outcome is a relatively good quality life
If the child is at risk of serious harm
If the child would die without the treatment
Or if a parent is refusing consent
In heartbreaking situations where a child has a terminal illness where no treatment is beneficial, parents do have a right to refuse treatment and let nature take it's course. When multiple doctors are giving different options of treatment, parents have a right to choose which is best for their child."
Molly,
ReplyDeleteThe unfortunate reality is that the GOP does not care about the welfare of children much past getting them out of the womb... If they did they would not strive to cut healthcare for poor women, Early Childhood Education programs, Parenting education programs, foster care programs, etc.
Here are some scary facts
And some even scary ones
And for some reason the GOP wants to focus on a teeny tiny number of very ill babies that are almost certain to die anyway. Because late term abortions only occur when things are really bad.
John, I find the article: “The Facts on the Born Alive Debate” troubling. In Minnesota 3 babies were born alive after an abortion and one received comfort care, one received no care and a third received no care due to a low APGAR score. I think the healthcare providers should be giving them the same care that non-aborted baby receives. It gives the impression that the baby is just left in a bassinet with no care until it dies. I’ll have to look through the other articles later.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Molly
If the parent(s) and doctor(s) decide the baby is terminal...
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think they should do?
Would you want someone forcing heroic measures and life support on your baby against your will?
Do you want the baby placed on life support until a judge can rule?
Thoughts?
Also...
ReplyDeleteAre all these folks who want to force this on the parent(s) and doctor(s) willing to pay the massive bills that would likely be incurred from ICU care of this very very sick child?
MN Report Link
ReplyDeleteFor the calendar year of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, three (3) abortion
procedures resulting in a born-alive infant were reported.
• In one instance, APGAR score was 1/1. No measures were taken and the infant did not
survive.
• In one instance, comfort care measures were provided as planned and the infant did not
survive.
• In one instance, no specific steps taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did
not survive.
I am not sure what a 1/1 score means, but it does not seem promising.
This is a particularly reckless and dangerous lie by a President who recklessly and dangerously lies frequently.
ReplyDeleteAgreed...
ReplyDeleteJohn, you keep mentioning the very sick child and those cases would be a gestation of 38 to 42 weeks.
ReplyDeleteBut what I thought Ben Sasse was talking about was those cases when abortions are performed on healthy babies when they are viable like after 22 weeks gestation. If the abortion is botched and the baby is born alive they should be treated in the same way any other baby would be treated if it was born premature.
If a very sick baby is born alive during an abortion then it should be treated the same way a very sick baby is treated if it was born during a normal birth.
Molly
And how should that be?
ReplyDeleteYou avoided my questions... That apply to new borns no matter how they get there.
If the parent(s) and doctor(s) decide the baby is terminal...
What do you think they should do?
Would you want someone forcing heroic measures and life support on your baby against your will?
Do you want the baby placed on life support until a judge can rule?
Thoughts?
Remember the definition of the word viable...
ReplyDelete"viability of a fetus : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of surviving outside the uterus"
Or Viability
After reading some of the links again, I noticed that this is one of "those cases" where the GOP is supporting "BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" again...
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that State laws already take care of this issue.
The supposedly FED laws are bad GOPers are trying to make these issues into Federal crimes...
Fed vs State Crimes
One more note. Even the NY Law which some Pro-Lifers have criticized makes most abortions illegal at 24 weeks.
ReplyDeleteG2A NY Codifies Roe V Wade
It seems to me that the regulation is very clear regarding the post-viability (ie 24 weeks) legal requirements. What else do you want?
"ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE:
- THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY,
- OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY,
- OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.
Also, what do you think of the fact that far more Mothers and Babies die from poor health care in the USA than failed abortions... And yet the GOP folks don't jump on that issue. :-(
ReplyDeleteAnd Lord knows providing Free High Quality Contraception to Low Income Women is a non-starter with the Religious Right.
I always figured the best way to end abortions was to end unplanned pregnancies through excellent education and easily accessible "guard rails". Neither of which are popular from the Ben Sasse Lutheran Missouri Synod belief system Though it looks like he is now a member of the PCA.
Here are some interesting PCA beliefs regarding Church Discipline...
ReplyDeletePart 1
Part 2
In summary it looks like Ben's church thinks that the normal Presbytarians are a bunch sinners. It was odd that he worked at an ELCA University... We tend to be pretty accepting of everyone.
Now that I am more rested... I think this is a key statement...
ReplyDelete"If a very sick baby is born alive during an abortion then it should be treated the same way a very sick baby is treated if it was born during a normal birth." Molly
Does this mean we need a new federal law to criminalize what happens after every birth occurs?
Why would one only put abortion doctors under the constant threat of additional federal prosecution when something goes wrong?
What are a parent(s) rights with regard to their new born baby and medical treatment choices?
Thanks for the additional info on Ben Sasse, I did not know about his religious background.
ReplyDeleteI agree that decreasing the number of unplanned pregnancies with birth control, education, etc. certainly would help avoid abortions.
Molly
I think it will make for an interesting future post.
ReplyDeleteI am fascinated how varied us Christians are... :-)