Should doctors have to tell women getting abortions that they have an increased risk of cancer and that the fetus might feel pain?
Hundreds of protesters rallied at the Indiana statehouse on Tuesday in opposition to restrictive abortion measures that would, among other things, require doctors to tell pregnant women about a controversial theory that says having an abortion could lead to an increased risk of breast cancer.
House Bill 1210, introduced by Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner (R), would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks. The Senate has already passed a similar bill, but it is awaiting action in the House.
The bill would also require physicians to inform a pregnant woman seeking an abortion that the fetus could feel pain and require patients to view an ultrasound. A patient could get out of doing so only if she stated her refusal in writing.
The wording seems odd to me. Especially the "Controversial theory [...] could lead to an increased risk [...]," and "[...] could feel pain [...]."
(I'm not going to click through links trying to research whether these are at all substantiated)
I could probably agree with the 20 week mark. I believe that the threshold for death (typically brain death) would make a good threshold for life, but I think I've read that it's impossible to draw a definite line.
Making an ultrasound necessary isn't inherently a bad thing, if there is a medical justification. Forcing the women to watch seems like a step too far, though. They might as well make the doctors ask "Are you sure you want to kill him? Oh, yes it's a boy. Your son. Do you want to kill your son?"
9 out of every 10 aborted fetuses complain about the pain of abortion during their stay in purgatory.
And 100% of all people will die, without or without cancer.
And not 1 G#d D#mn woman goes to get an abortion feeling good about, so why the hell should a physician attempt to make them feel worst?
I always astounds me how the same people who claim "life" is precious and abortions should be illegal, are the ones who are so gung hoe to go to war. "Don't abort that baby! We need him to die for oil!"
If that increased risk of cancer is good science, absolutely that should be part of what doctors tell them. As for the fetal pain... the legal status of abortion is based on the idea that a fetus is not yet a person... so I'm not sure how that bit of information would be anything but emotional manipulation. I don't think that should be required.
No matter how militantly pro-choice anyone is, I don't see why there would be any objection to a woman's being as informed as possible. I'm not talking propaganda, of course, but outside sound medical advice, I'm not keen on bans against or requirements for any information people choose to share.
[quote]On Friday 3/11/11 - 7:42:08 AM IRLIteach wrote: If that increased risk of cancer is good science, absolutely that should be part of what doctors tell them. [quote]
According the link, the increased risk of cancer thing is total crap. The major health organizations have refuted it - there is, however, an increased risk of breast cancer if you actually have the baby, though only for a brief period. It seems incredible that very questionable science may become part of law.
On Friday 3/11/11 - 10:13:43 AM anthraxrocks wrote: Doctors do not have the right to lie to their patients about the procedure. That should be a felony.
Is an error of omission really something we want to be a felony? If what secret said is true, should doctors be arrested, tried, and jailed for not telling expectant mothers that failure to have an abortion may result in an increased chance of cancer?
No, and anyone answering yes is (even if unintentionally) supporting a fabrication. There is no clear evidence linking breast cancer and abortions; most of the literature finding positive results is riddled with small sample sizes and other errors. Large scale studies have found no link. The WHO and AMA's official positions are in direct opposition to this crank theory.
And while we're on it, the belief that abortion leads to increased incidence of psychiatric disorders is also pretty clearly a myth; carrying a child to term carries a higher risk of subsequent mental illness (post-partum depression, mostly), whereas aborting doesn't, according to a fairly recent, rather large epidemiological study in Denmark.
(As an aside, I'd like to point out that all the good epidemiological studies come from countries that have single-payer systems.)
I, for one, would like to see a doctor get charged with not mentioning the 'risk', then drag the state to court for infringing on his or her free speech by requiring that he or she lie to a patient. It'd be a real bitch-slap to the quack theory, IMO.
On Friday 3/11/11 - 10:18:44 AM secretbitch wrote: [quote]On Friday 3/11/11 - 7:42:08 AM IRLIteach wrote: If that increased risk of cancer is good science, absolutely that should be part of what doctors tell them. [quote] According the link, the increased risk of cancer thing is total crap. The major health organizations have refuted it
Ah, thanks. That's a shame (the lie, not the lack of risk). I hate that both sides of the abortion debate are so hellbent on winning that they don't take advantage of opportunities to work together. I mean, pro-choicers don't want women bullied out of having an abortion, but it's not like they want them having abortions w/o full awareness, so *good* science should be desirable. Pro-lifers don't want any abortions, but wouldn't stopping *more* be better than none?
How about making adoption more feasible in this country. As it is right now, couples who adopt within the country are spending upwards of ten times as much money as couples who adopt internationally.
I'm all about women being well informed, and having all their options presented to them (well ahead of time), but brow beating someone going through that kind of emotional stress/trauma is messed up.
On Friday 3/11/11 - 1:14:24 PM Joham22 wrote: How about making adoption more feasible in this country. As it is right now, couples who adopt within the country are spending upwards of ten times as much money as couples who adopt internationally. I'm all about women being well informed, and having all their options presented to them (well ahead of time), but brow beating someone going through that kind of emotional stress/trauma is messed up.
On Friday 3/11/11 - 1:35:23 PM Girlgone wrote: "controversial theory that says having an abortion could lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. " Is there any evidence this is true?
Even if there is some evidence, should Dr. really be responsible for educating patients about every controversial theory out there? I find it hard to believe this would be beneficial, or even feasible.
If there is a significant or even association with the evidence/findings, then yes. The patient has a right to know all the risks and benefits. Of course it will depend on how the study was conducted and and if it meets minimum evaluation standards, has been published and is able to be replicated.
No idea about "fetus might feel pain". That might be difficult to prove and it would be inappropriate. I kinda think the woman is already going through enough stress and is more aware than anyone what she is doing.
With this being a controversial theory, that leads me to think its just some made up, unsubstantiated, BS to try and get more people against abortions. So until there is clear evidence, it should be left out, in my opinion.
Until there is evidence, its just a rumor. I do not want my doctor telling me possible false information, especially if I was going through something that would be as tramatic (well, for me at least) as getting an abortion. Doctors should give facts, not lists of theories that hold no weight.
While I agree doctors should be obligated to tell the patient all the risks associated with whatever procedure they are going to have, I still feel like they should limit it to the proven risks.
Everyone has the ability to google, if they want to know the unsubstantiated risks too, they can find them.
Personally, I google most things before I do them, I dont know if most people do or not, but thats almost a reflex for me, so when I go to the doctor, I want facts, not "this person says there is a possibility of the controversial theory that...."
At that time the fetus is apart of their body they should know that it will feel pain. The cancer part is a given. I think there are alot of people out there who see abortions as easy as contraception. "If I have unprotected sex its okay, I'll just have an abortion." I know I'm going to get ripped apart for saying this, but I'm not speaking on whether or not I think abortions should be practiced or not. Alot of people , young people especially are misinformed about the fact that having an abortion is a major procedure that can have complications. They often don't realize what the effects can be. That they will need to be bed ridden, there is a high chance of not being able to concieve afterwards and whether they think it or not there is usually mental therapy needed afterward. My point is that it should be universally known or at least well known of what comes with an abortion.
With every surgurey or medication, you are informed of the potential risks. The only reason why this is a debate is because its related to abortion and alot people assosciate any sort of limit on it with religion. This is all assuming that the cancer theory is proven to be correct. Ladies when you went on birth control were you not informed by your doctor that it could lead to blood clots and breast cancer?