^ Look at this man trying to dictate the needs of women's bodies.
Why didn't they treat the sepsis?And those doctors are not unable to save the others that we're discussing, they are choosing to not save them.
Abortion with Septic Shock
Abortion with septic shock can be a dangerous complication, but prompt treatment can aid in a better outcome. Learn how to reduce your risk.www.healthline.com
You always say it should be between her and der doctor...
The right wingers are gonna get all weird over this, you watch.Another woman killed by Texas's draconian abortion ban.
Pregnant Texas teen died after three ER visits due to impact of abortion ban
Neveah Crain died in October 2023 after doctor reportedly called for two ultrasounds to ‘confirm fetal demise’www.theguardian.com
Anti-choicers are NOT "pro life."
The right wingers are gonna get all weird over this, you watch.
Sepsis is hard to treat under the best of circumstances. If the problem causing the sepsis is still there, there is no chance at all.Why didn't they treat the sepsis?
I know. This kind of shit turns them on.They already are.
I read that article with a little bit of care. The young lady was not denied an abortion on legal grounds. Her first ER visit was flubbed due to medical incompetence. She complained of problems associated with pregnancy, and was diagnosed with strep throat. The dumbest redneck in America doesn't look down a patient's throat for complications with pregnancy.Another woman killed by Texas's draconian abortion ban.
Pregnant Texas teen died after three ER visits due to impact of abortion ban
Neveah Crain died in October 2023 after doctor reportedly called for two ultrasounds to ‘confirm fetal demise’www.theguardian.com
Anti-choicers are NOT "pro life."
Doctors are not allowed to perform an abortion on a woman with sepsis. The sepsis has to be treated first. The Texas ban isn't even in play here, that was always prohibited.Sepsis is hard to treat under the best of circumstances. If the problem causing the sepsis is still there, there is no chance at all.
Yes. You want the women to die OR the doctors to lose their licenses and possibly face prison time.We are simply in disagreement over what the right thing is for them to do.
Sure.I read that article with a little bit of care. The young lady was not denied an abortion on legal grounds. Her first ER visit was flubbed due to medical incompetence. She complained of problems associated with pregnancy, and was diagnosed with strep throat. The dumbest redneck in America doesn't look down a patient's throat for complications with pregnancy.
The other ERs were kicking the can down the road, trying to avoid responsibility. A demand for two ultrasounds to confirm a problem with the baby is nonsense. Might as well ask for a CT and an MRI along with redundant ultrasounds. They already had a blood test indicating sepsis, FFS.
Better to look into the doctors and the administration who denied the lady prompt medical treatment.
Interesting. Link?Doctors are not allowed to perform an abortion on a woman with sepsis. The sepsis has to be treated first.
If they treat them, those doctors risk losing their licenses and going to jail.It's time for doctors who don't treat these women to lose their licenses.
Most doctors -- and Americans -- already want some level of legal abortion. The problem is that Texas is thoroughly in the grips of extreme conservatives, who will do anything to a) maintain power and b) ban all abortions.Maybe that will light a fire under them to demand the law be changed.
I would love to know why they didn't treat the sepsis.Better to look into the doctors and the administration who denied the lady prompt medical treatment.
Already provided in thread.Interesting. Link?
I read that article with a little bit of care. The young lady was not denied an abortion on legal grounds. Her first ER visit was flubbed due to medical incompetence. She complained of problems associated with pregnancy, and was diagnosed with strep throat. The dumbest redneck in America doesn't look down a patient's throat for complications with pregnancy.
The other ERs were kicking the can down the road, trying to avoid responsibility. A demand for two ultrasounds to confirm a problem with the baby is nonsense. Might as well ask for a CT and an MRI along with redundant ultrasounds. They already had a blood test indicating sepsis, FFS.
Better to look into the doctors and the administration who denied the lady prompt medical treatment.
Already provided in thread:So.
No link?
Abortion with Septic Shock
Abortion with septic shock can be a dangerous complication, but prompt treatment can aid in a better outcome. Learn how to reduce your risk.www.healthline.com
You always say it should be between her and der doctor...
It's time for doctors who don't treat these women to lose their licenses. If plummeting blood pressure and sepsis does not constitute an emergency under Texas law, what on earth does? I'm done with excuses that they're afraid they'll lose their licenses because the Texas law is murky. I hope the doctors and the hospitals at which they work are sued every time a woman dies due to gross negligence. Maybe that will light a fire under them to demand the law be changed.
Happy googling, then. You can also try ChatGPT or Grok. AND she likely would have still been denied an elective abortion even under Roe because she was 6 months along.I just went through that link and it says nothing of the kind.
No. You lied about what the link said, so you're dismissed.Happy googling, then. You can also try ChatGPT or Grok. AND she likely would have still been denied an elective abortion even under Roe because she was 6 months along.
It seems they're using this thread to vent their frustration at the likelihood of Trump winning and aren't interested in actually debating the issue.I don't know all the details of this incident but, according to the article, her first visit to the ER resulted in a diagnosis of strep throat. To my admittedly non-medical experience that wouldn't be considered to be a life threatening issue related to pregnancy which required an abortion to save the woman's life. The second visit, according to the article, found sepsis but, again, that isn't something that, to my admittedly limited knowledge, is related exclusively to pregnancy.
In the article(s) we are not told much of anything about the entirety of the situation but the Texas law is, of course, cited as the cause of everything that went wrong. The Texas law DOES NOT prohibit a physician from performing an abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. Sepsis would present such a risk but, if caught and treated properly, could have saved both mother and child. It certainly appears that there was a professional failing or two along the way when it came to this woman's treatment but I don't see how this was the result of the law.
Oh, look. @Teatime is here to tell us what we're really thinking.It seems they're using this thread to vent their frustration at the likelihood of Trump winning and aren't interested in actually debating the issue.
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?