7 out of 100 is not a lot, IMO.
The govt. is agreeing to put the law on hold. I doubt it would do that if it was so sure of it......
Medical decisions should be made by the medical profession, NOT the govt.
The article I cited recognizes that ACOG doesn't recommend the treatment. It also shows a 57% success rate over 223 treatments so it's not insignificant and it's not "7 trials" like some others have mentioned.
Again, why withhold this information if the objective is really to allow women to make an informed choice?
There is a difference between mandating that doctors tell patients that their abortion can be reversed based on questionable science and permitting a doctor to answer questions that the patient may ask.
Is the reversal procedure accepted by the ACOG?
http://www.acog.org/~/media/departm...ZFactSheetMedicationAbortionReversalfinal.pdf
Why in the hell would someone suggest a law that revolves around a specific medical procedure - and not have the medical community accept the procedure?
It is FITH to the extreme.
Informed consent has to do with informing a patient of information that is generally accepted as medically accurate.
You may dispense with the faux outrage, nota. You can't just put a ridiculous or distorted position out there and not expected to have it critiqued.
You (plural, here and henceforth) are not "pro-life." George Carlin destroyed that stupid misnomer in one of his epic takedowns, most of whose points are covered around here at length.
You are not even "anti-abortion." This has been well-established around here, too.
You deserve the label because it is the most nearly accurate to your positions. You deliberately and intentionally choose to oppose a woman's right to govern her pregnancy as she sees fit.
Oh and by the way. There is something fascinatingly and disturbingly ironic about a woman's choosing to be anti-choice. Seems to me that that's just cattiness, pure and simple.
Holy ****, nota, you didn't even make it out of this post without doing the very thing that you accused me of. What the hell is a "secularist" anyway?
I find it fascinating that a large number of conservatives and even some libertarians believe that the government can do almost nothing right and should never be trusted...
...until it comes to controlling women's bodies! Then all of a sudden, they seem to want the most invasive government that money can buy!
I don't really understand, where your problem is.
You are kidding me, right?
A law making women be informed about an OB/GYN procedure that is not accepted by the ACOG?
We are talking a law advocating a practice that is not accepted by a group of people who are concerned with the well being of OB/GYN patients.
I do not see the problem. What is the harm? Personally I do not think the government should be involved in a lot of things. But I do not see any reason to get excited about this one in particular.
I do not see the problem. What is the harm? Personally I do not think the government should be involved in a lot of things. But I do not see any reason to get excited about this one in particular.
PHOENIX — Arizona's controversial new abortion law will not go into effect on July 3 as scheduled.
The state and a group of medical professionals that has sued Arizona over the law have agreed to delay its implementation until federal courts have a chance to rule on the matter.
The law, the first of its kind in the nation, requires abortion providers to tell patients that it is possible to reverse a medication abortion. Three Arizona doctors and Planned Parenthood Arizona filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month challenging the law and asking the court to stop it from going into effect.
Arizona's 'abortion reversal' law put on hold
=============================================
Good. It should be scrapped, as it's a bunch of baloney. Doctors should never be lie to their patients, let alone be forced to lie to them.
Plan B 0ne-Step. Emergency contraceptive pills utilize a medication that is similar to a hormone produced by the ovaries. The hormone produced by the ovaries is progesterone and a similar component in Plan B One-Step is levonorgestrel (a progestin). Plan B, a two dose regimen, was approved by the FDA for use in the United States in 1999. Plan B One-Step, a one dose regimen, was approved by the FDA in 2009
My daughter is high risk for miscarriage . Her reproductive GYN prescribed the progesterone gel inserted by the cervix for her.
The gel was not covered by insurance and cost $320 for a 5 day supply ( 5 pens ) she was on it for 30 days.
She started using it as soon as she found she was pregnant . ( so early her fist ultrasound just showed a yoke sac and beginning of the placenta.). Over $1500
So it is an expensive procedure for an experimental " reversal" based on one study where the people performing the test study may or may not have stock in manufacture.
What is the harm about instituting a law that requires ob/gyns to give information about a procedure that their own professional organization does not advocate?
Say it out loud -maybe you will get it.
What is the harm? Serial injections of high dose progesterone can have cardiovascular and endocrine side effects.
They want to REQUIRE the ob/gyn to inform a woman about a treatment that they know has not been properly tested and a safety profile has not been established.
Reversing Abortion Pill: Can It Be Done? | Medpage Today
If there is a reasonable possibility that the abortificient medication can be offset by additional progesterone then it is absolutely ethical that the patient be so advised.
But this "study" is including women they lost contact with, and therefore don't know if the pregnancy continued or not. What percentage of them is unknown.
It has always been known that there will be some cases where a pregnancy survives the first medication. However, many if not most cases will result in either full miscarriage, incomplete miscarriage (at which point the woman's life becomes at risk due to sepsis), or a stillbirth with or without major deformities. That is why women are advised that they must complete the abortion once they've begun it.
This "study" does nothing to change that, as it does not meaningfully compare this "treatment" against not having any treatment. They aren't even following up with some of the women they're studying. Gee, wonder why. As your own link says, 30 to 50% of pregnancies will continue after the first medication even without any treatment. So there is no evidence whatsoever that this "treatment" does anything at all.
Advising women that a medical abortion can be "reversed" with an unproven pseudoscientific treatment that no legitimate hospital even provides puts their lives at risk.
When progesterone treatment to reverse an abortion-in-progress is properly studied according to medical and FDA protocol and approved for human use, then you can advise women that an abortion-in-progress can be reversed. Please, by all means. I am always in favor of there being as many choices as humanly possible for all possible scenarios a woman might encounter. Women who abort due to being in coercive situations come immediately to mind, in this case. But experimenting on vulnerable women is not the solution. Actual proven medicine is.
Unless or until this "treatment" meets the criteria of actual medicine, anyone who tells a woman she can have a reversal, or worse yet actually tries to perform one, should have their license revoked and be charged with endangerment and criminal human experimentation.
"..or worse yet actually tries to perform one.."?
How do you propose this study be done? Are you going to as women who want their baby to take an abortifacient just to see if it can be reversed? The doctor that did this study obviously took the time to explain to her patients that this was an option that might be successful and the patients chose to participate. That tells me two things; first, it tells me that not every woman who initially seeks an abortion chooses to go through with it and second, it tells me that at least some women who are informed that there may be an option to reverse the effects of the abortifacient will choose to do so.
As I've said before, if this issue is really about choice then why take information off the table that might convince a woman to choose life for her baby?
The questions are fine, but it would be negligent to allow that to suffice. That is why you have to sign that you have been informed of possible consequences of medical procedures. Otherwise the doctor is even more liable to be sued.
Some people think it is worth it. Of course, you have to know about it to know.
I thought that doctors were obliged to explain the details of and medical procedure in detail. They can be sued otherwise.
Reversing Abortion Pill: Can It Be Done? | Medpage Today
If there is a reasonable possibility that the abortificient medication can be offset by additional progesterone then it is absolutely ethical that the patient be so advised.
Daniel Grossman, MD, a fellow of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and vice president for research at Ibis Reproductive Health in Oakland, Calif., said that based on the 2012 case studies series,"there is really no clear evidence that this works."
For about 30% to 50% of women who take mifepristone alone, the pregnancy will continue, he said.
"In the rare situation where a women takes a mifepristone and then changes her mind, it may very well be that doing nothing and just waiting to see what happens would be just as effective as doing this course of progesterone treatment."
Grossman was also concerned that the research was done without the oversight of an institutional review board or an ethical review committee of some kind.
There is no real evidence that 'abortion reversal' actually is possible. One very pro-life doctor claims he has done it, but there is no peer reviewed evidence, or even anything in a journal that shows it is feasible or possible.
It can not be shown to be true, and doctors shouldn't lie.
Because it's not a reasonable claim
You didn't go further in your own source, which quotes
First off, the ACOG report relies on a 2012 case study of 6 women, not the more than 200 that Delgado has worked with.
Second, nobody at ACOG says this program doesn't work. What they say is that they don't have the evidence to make that determination.
I keep on asking this but it keeps on getting ignored, why is it so important to the "pro choice" crowd to hide this information from women? If we assume that most women are capable of making a rational decision then they should be free to accept or ignore this information as they see fit. That would be "making a choice", right?
He makes the claim.. yet.... his claims in his 'study' are not duplicated else where.
As I said earlier, it's not a really easy study to perform. You can't exactly go to women who want to keep their baby and ask them to take RU 486 just to see if it can be reversed so the only real way to get data is to present the choice and work with those who might change their minds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?