Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba203y [2020/05/19 12:04] – mmccannutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba203y [2024/08/16 17:02] (current) – [Misc Notes] mmccann
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== PBA203Y: Medical Dilemmas ====== ====== PBA203Y: Medical Dilemmas ======
 +
 +FIXME abortion as self-defence? https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/refuting-abortion-as-self-defense/
 ===== Guiding Principles: How Many Patients? ===== ===== Guiding Principles: How Many Patients? =====
  
 The guiding principle, recognizing the human rights of the pre-born, is not that either the life/rights of the child or mother takes precedence over the other, but that we're dealing with //two patients// in any complication surrounding pregnancy and we need to do our best to attend to the well-being of both. The guiding principle, recognizing the human rights of the pre-born, is not that either the life/rights of the child or mother takes precedence over the other, but that we're dealing with //two patients// in any complication surrounding pregnancy and we need to do our best to attend to the well-being of both.
 +
 +As this [[https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/health/brain-surgery-in-utero/index.html|CNN article]] about a successful fetal surgery writes: "But for this surgery, there were **two patients:** Kenyatta and her baby."
 ==== Is Abortion Ever Ethically Permissible? ==== ==== Is Abortion Ever Ethically Permissible? ====
   * Killing an innocent human being is never OK -- even if it's to save another human being   * Killing an innocent human being is never OK -- even if it's to save another human being
Line 97: Line 101:
   * Ultimately, what can be learned from this tragic story is that it is possible that an ethical course of action was necessary to treat Savita's septicemia -- to treat her bloodstream infection. But in neither case was abortion the answer. Abortion doesn't cure septicemia. Abortion doesn't kill E. Coli bacteria. All abortion does is kill a pre-born child. It's very much possible that it would have been necessary to end savita's pregnancy and remove her child. The question is, should they have removed her child in one piece, or in pieces?    * Ultimately, what can be learned from this tragic story is that it is possible that an ethical course of action was necessary to treat Savita's septicemia -- to treat her bloodstream infection. But in neither case was abortion the answer. Abortion doesn't cure septicemia. Abortion doesn't kill E. Coli bacteria. All abortion does is kill a pre-born child. It's very much possible that it would have been necessary to end savita's pregnancy and remove her child. The question is, should they have removed her child in one piece, or in pieces? 
   * When the media used this story to further the case for legalized abortion in Ireland, they forgot a fundamental moral principle: we may not kill to save.   * When the media used this story to further the case for legalized abortion in Ireland, they forgot a fundamental moral principle: we may not kill to save.
 +
 +===== Do maternal mortality rates increase under anti-abortion legislation? =====
 +  * Statistical response: pro-life legislation =/= high maternal mortality rate
 +    * E.g. see lower maternal mortality rates of Ireland, Poland, Chile
 +    * 2 cases
 +      * South Africa [208-1980, 121-1990, 155-2000, 237-2008]
 +        * Legalized abortion in 1997: 11 years later highest it’s been. MMR increased after becoming legal!
 +      * Chile [70-1980, 44-1990, 24-2000, 21-2008]
 +        * 1989, abortion completely prohibited
 +        * provides a singular research case of maternal and abortion mortality before and after abortion prohibition
 +        * Reduction in MMR during last 5 decades correspond with improvements in education, access to clean water, decr. illiteracy rate of pregnant women, incr. maternal health facilities e.g. delivery by skilled attendants
 +        * In other words, access to legal abortion not necessary to achieve low rates of maternal deaths.
 +
 +> A [[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036613 | peer-reviewed study]] published last week examines 50 years of data and concludes that the trajectory of maternal mortality in [Chile] has consistently declined, decreasing from 293.7 in 1957 to 18.2 in 2007 (per 100,000 live births). That’s a decrease of 93.8%, which constitutes a major success story measured in women’s lives. Yet Chile outlawed abortion in 1989. Chile didn’t just place small restrictions on abortion — it outlawed abortion without exception, including in instances of rape or for the health of the mother. And since many neighbouring countries also restrict abortion, there’s no real reason to believe Chilean women are travelling outside Chile to get abortions. - Andrea Mrozek https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrea-mrozek-if-abortion-saves-lives-whats-happening-in-chile 
 +
 +
 +http://www.imfcanada.org/archive/283/creative-math
 +
 +
 ===== In conversation ===== ===== In conversation =====
     * Define abortion - direct and intentional killing of preborn child      * Define abortion - direct and intentional killing of preborn child 
Line 123: Line 146:
  
 ===== Misc Notes ===== ===== Misc Notes =====
 +  * FIXME https://prolifereplies.liveaction.org/medically-necessary/ good summary
   * FIXME Dan Bader Nov 2008 tutorial   * FIXME Dan Bader Nov 2008 tutorial
   * FIXME Oriyana's speaker notes for presentation https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7F56ieEvQdpZEF0ejFEMWdhNTZ3MkdDUjFIWl90SU96bUFv/view?usp=sharing   * FIXME Oriyana's speaker notes for presentation https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7F56ieEvQdpZEF0ejFEMWdhNTZ3MkdDUjFIWl90SU96bUFv/view?usp=sharing
Line 143: Line 167:
   * FIXME Savita https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S24yxcn379Y&list=PLrPqu4eanx6355cp8aIiAB7qpl0EmzAeA&index=26   * FIXME Savita https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S24yxcn379Y&list=PLrPqu4eanx6355cp8aIiAB7qpl0EmzAeA&index=26
  
 +FIXME Communication/PR and legal problems for when pro-lifers say "abortion is never medically necessary"
 +ERI article: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/abortion-and-medical-necessity-improving-the-pro-life-approach/
 +SPL short video summary of article: https://youtube.com/shorts/4bZqIkJ9gH4?feature=share
 +
 +FIXME both an apologetics issue AND a strategy issue re: laws
 +FIXME objection: "we need to get rid of all abortion laws because even if there are medical exemptions, providers will not intervene out of fear or confusion about the laws"
 +
 +This is like saying "we need to get rid of all sexual assault laws because sometimes healthcare providers need to perform emergency pelvic exams on unconscious patients, and if there are laws prohibiting sexual assault, they will hesitate or refrain from doing emergency pelvic exams because of fear or confusion about the laws"
 +
 +Or "if we have laws that generally prohibit sticking a knife in another person's head, then fearful/confused doctors will hesitate to perform emergency brain surgeries, so we need to get rid of all laws against head stabbing"
 +
 +FIXME missed miscarriage case in Ohio and DC: explanation of why it seems incredibly unlikely that anti abortion laws played a role in delay of care, especially since the delayed care began in a place with no abortion restrictions (Washington DC) https://youtu.be/nRZAFw3tNiM?si=MuQ58c7beJZacO2G
  
 +FIXME check this article later to see if useful https://prolifemillennial.substack.com/p/are-abortion-bans-preventing-women