Saturday, October 23, 2010

40 Days, and the terrible coldness

The next step will probably be to hand out abortion pills along with condoms in every high school--but for now, this gets pretty close:
Abortion foes pleaded with the Iowa Board of Medicine on Friday to immediately halt Planned Parenthood's use of telemedicine to dispense abortion pills to women in rural communities, but the board said it needs more time to study the issue.

The first-in-the-nation system allows a Planned Parenthood physician in Des Moines to visit with each patient by videoconference, then press a computer button to open a drawer in front of the patient, who could be at a clinic many miles from the doctor. The patient reaches into the drawer and withdraws the pills, taking the first dose as the doctor watches.

About a dozen people raised questions and objections about the practice during the board's public comment session Friday. More than 1,500 Iowa patients have used the videoconferencing system to obtain the drugs over the past two years, and abortion opponents have complained the practice violates a state law requiring that all abortions be performed by a physician.
It's hard to imagine the terrible coldness that exists when the doctor prescribing death for a woman's child doesn't even bother to be in the same room with her when the mother of the soon-to-be dead baby swallows the first dose of poison targeted at the unborn human being inside of her. Leaving aside the fact that the so-called "doctor" obviously doesn't give a damn for the life of one of the two human beings on the other side of the webcam, there's the little reality that the abortion pills have been known to cause complications, including twelve known deaths, and that many women have had to be hospitalized for severe bleeding and other problems after taking the pills designed to kill their babies. One would think that a doctor who cared about his or her patients would at least want to know they were close enough to a medical facility to be treated in the event of an emergency--but apparently that level of concern for patients is not a prerequisite for those medical providers who specialize in killing off unwanted unborn humans.

Maybe someday long in the future, those abortion doctors will sit helpless in some pleasant nursing home while their relatives, eager to inherit all the blood-money from the doctor's long practice in "terminating pregnancies," wait until some medical provider on the other end of a webcam pushes a button to dispense the euthanasia drugs that will end the abortionist's life. Coldness begets coldness, and the danger of teaching everyone around you that human life has no inherent value is that one's future heirs are likely to learn the lesson all too well.


priest's wife said...

I would say "unbelievable"- but I believe it- sounds like something out of a Ray Bradbury story

Anonymous said...

Erin, I would love it if you would do post about Dr. Bernard Nathanson. I think it might open some people's eyes.

Our priest gave a wonderful homily lastnight about this doctor, and about the immense mercy of God.

Thanks for your great posts.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I doubt very much that those complaining have any standing to make a legal complaint. The complainers haven't suffered any injury. Now if women suffer unintended side effects, at a higher rate than women who have an in-person exam, this might be grounds for regulatory action.

Teleconferencing is becoming common for other medical conditions, for the same reasons: distance, scarcity of doctors in remote areas, expense to the patient of travelling some distance for care... this should be judged on the same basis.

Either prescribing this medicine is legal, or its not. If its not, then of course teleconferencing doesn't add any legality. So long as it is legal, this sort of petty interference, trying to throw obstacles in the way of individual decisions and access, is contemptible, and fortunately, not very effectual.

Anonymous said...

Erin - clutching the pearls about the "coldness" of "telemedicine"?

Would you have a problem with using it to deliver chemotherapy for breast cancer patients, even if there was no medical back-up nearby for the possible effects of these toxic drugs?

A doctor who would prescribe these drugs at a distance is a doctor who would prescribe them in person.

Rather than kick up a fuss over every related side issue, stick to the main show.

And another thing, the arguments about women being harmed by abortion technologies of all kinds are weak. Pregnancy and childbirth also kill and maim women - I was nearly one of them. Infant mortality is way up in our own country - birth is no guarantee of a long life.

Hone in on what you do best - hammering away at the innocence, potential and vulnerability of the in-utero being and the need to support women so that they do not feel the need for abortion.

Red Cardigan said...

Yes, I absolutely would have a problem with telemedicine being used, outside of a dire emergency situation, to deliver chemotherapy drugs. People are not machines; medical care involves the heart as well as the body and mind.

But it's especially cold to kill a woman's child this way. Imagine if the woman being driven at gunpoint to a clinic by the man trying to force her to abort had been taken instead to one of these places, with the gunman remaining off-camera--but still in the room to make sure the woman took the pills. There's not even a modicum of caring or support possible--it's just "Here, take these, and call me when you have a dead baby." Cold, cold, cold.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Erin's position is consistent, then. It is a bad methodology for medical care, whether or not abortion is involved.

I would like to comment on the other end, the abortion doctor, or anyone else, me for instance, in a nursing home. I do not favor dispensing euthanasia medicines, but if I am someday in a nursing home, with my mind mostly wandering and my plumbing leaking, and one day, my heart stops, I do NOT want to be rushed to an ambulance and put on a heart-lung machine. I'm not asking the staff of the nursing home to be cold. We just need to recognize that part of God's plan is that at some point, we die, generally because our heart stops. So, when it does, my loved ones should have a nice funeral to settle their grief, and bury me. No, I choose cremation. I want my ashes scattered in a bed of roses, preferably the one I hope to plant if I ever own the ground to plant it on.

Charlotte said...

Thanks for sharing this. That makes me SICK. I cannot believe we've went this far with technology. It's creepy - for whatever it might be used for.

priest's wife said...

Siarlys- There is nothing in Catholic theology that forces us to be put on machines (extraordinary care)- make sure, by the time you are old and ill to have a DNR order- then, it will actually be illegal to try and get your heart pumping again