From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers? (Was: Holtsinger on Harassment & Health)
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:24:14 GMT

In article <BxIJxF.ItJ.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.231922.16381@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>#In article <1992Nov9.184241.12652@nas.nasa.gov>
>#dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>##In article <1992Nov8.064722.10308@midway.uchicago.edu>
>##eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>###I've recently made it clear that I support requiring medical approval,
>###not judicial approval.... 

>She says, and then goes on to define medical approval as something
>that requires judicial approval exp post.

Only if an abortion was performed before a second opinion could be
given.  If a second opinion concurs with the necessity and an abortion
is performed, there's no investigation of the mater unless a credible
charge that the abortion was unnecessary is made.

>#In an emergency, any doctor qualified to diagnose if a third-term
>#abortion is need and to perform one could go ahead and perform one but
>#might have to justify the abortion afterwards.  (Of course, if he
>#doesn't perform one and she dies, there's no "might" about him having
>#to justify his lack of treatment.)

>This certainly doesn't keep the judiciary out of the equation.  It
>does, however, make the doctor's decision more complicated, and 
>might result in that doctor doing something that would endanger
>the woman's health (but keep her alive) because of the hassle of
>explaining the decision to abort to the courts.

1) He runs a significantly higher risk of getting into trouble if the
woman is injured because she didn't have an abortion than he does if
he performs an abortion.

2) That's why the default of no judicial review given a concurring
opinion, and why (barring proof of bribery or one doctor lying to the
other) the worst that can be done if a judicial review *is* performed
is not let the doctor perform another third-trimester abortion without
a higher level of judicial review afterwards.

[my explanation of two concuring qualified doctors performing an
abortion with the worst consequences for the doctors as above deleted]

>Any M.D. can diagnose any illness, legally speaking.  I called the
>AMA and checked.  Board certification implies expertise, it is not
>a requirement to practice.  It sounds as if a new form of regulation
>is being suggested for physicians.

Hm.  Let's restore some of the above:

>#In other cases, doctors who are certified qualified to diagnose
>#conditions which require an abortion (ask the AMA who; I would guess
>#all gynecologists and some others)

If the default condition is that all M.D.s are presumed qualified to
treat everything, I'll go with that and trust that podiatrists will
have the sense not to diagnose ectopic pregnancies (though I don't
think that's relevant to third-trimester abortions)....

I am proposing a new regulation, as follows: if two doctors perform an
third-trimester abortion, someone presents a reason why it wasn't
medically necessary, this is investigated and it's found it wasn't
medically necessary, the two doctors involved are presumed incompetant
to diagnose whether third-trimester abortions are necessary and all
future third-trimester abortions they preform will be investigated.
If one of them then performs a third-trimester abortion after this
point and it's found medically unnecessary, then real penalities are
quite possible.

>I'm at a loss as to how Beth thinks that this will prevent
>"unnecessary" late term abortions in a way that they are not
>currently prevented, other than denying women who are carrying

I think it will deny abortions in cases of rape and a handful of
sex-selection abortions.

>severely deformed or dead fetuses their right to abort.  I

I've gone into this at greater length in my response to Dan -- two
concurring doctors' opinions, state pays for the second, no judicial
review unless a reason for it comes up, the worst that the doctors
face (barring proof that they took bribes or one lied to the other) is
not being able to perform another third-trimester abortion without
possibility of significant legal penalty.
 
>know that there are only a few doctors who will perform late
>abortions now, and I know that at least one of them refuses to
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>do them when he thinks they aren't necessary.  This still sounds

So there's at least a possibility that a couple of doctors perform
third trimester abortions on demand.

>like legislation for its own sake, with the added frill of
>more government interference in medicine via new forms of
>certification.

Don't forget: I think third-trimester abortions are killing a possible
person.  Regulating this is *not* legislation for its own sake for me.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion