From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Petey Ny, check reality, try again
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: risks, surgical procedure
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 01:37:55 GMT

In article <nyikos.724631548@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

[Whining about his newsserver deleted]

>_________________________Copy of Cochran Post__________________________
>
>From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
>Subject: Re: abortion
>Message-ID: <1992Dec15.013914.12332@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
>X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
>	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
>	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
>Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
>Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
>References: <Byqo2M.EE0@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1fokv0INN4rt@gap.caltech.edu> <nyikos.724089886@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
>Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:39:14 GMT
>Lines: 19
>
>In article <nyikos.724089886@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
>>And BTW, an earlier post on this thread said all pregnancy involves a 
>>risk to life, and asked what the Weaver Nelson probability should be 
>>before abortion is allowed.  To which I would reply, that all abortion
>>involves a risk to life, and what anyone's probability should be
>>before they will EVEN SUPPORT LAWS MANDATING ABORTIONISTS INFORM WOMEN
>>OF THE RISKS INVOLVED.
>>
>What makes you think the risks are not explained?
>All invasive medical procedures require informed consent.
>Informed consent requires that all risks of the procedure be detailed.
>Care to try again?
>
>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
>your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
>Ghost of Elvis. So there.
>____________________________End of post______________________________
>
>My second try:
>
>Chief Justice Burger, dissenting in 476 US at 783:
>
>	   The extent to which the Court has departed from the limitations
>	expressed in *Roe* is readily apparent.  In *Roe*, the Court
>	emphasized
>		"that the State does have an important and legitimate
>		interest in preserving and protecting the health of the
>		pregnant woman..." *Id., at 162.
>
>	Yet today the Court astonishingly goes so far as to say that the 
>	State may not even require that a woman contemplating an abortion
>	be provided with accurate medical information concerning the risks
>	inherent in the medical procedure which she is about to undergo
>	and the availability of state-funded alternatives if she elects
>	not to run those risks.  Can anyone doubt that the State could 
>	impose a similar requirement with respect to other medical 
>	procedures?  Can anyone doubt that doctors routinely give similar
>	information concerning risks in countless procedures having far
>	less impact on life and health, both physical and emotional than 
>	an abortion, and risk a malpractice lawsuit if they fail to do so?
>	   Yet the Court concludes that the State cannot impose this 
>	simple information-dispensing requirement in the abortion context
>	where the decision is fraught with serious physical, psychological,
>	and moral concerns of the highest order.
>
>Update: this part of *Thornburgh* was overturned in *Casey*, but I do
>not know of any state law except the Pa. law that was upheld, that now
>requires abortionists to inform patients of the risks.  There is NO such
>law in South Carolina, thanks in part to the head honcho [I forget his
>exact title], male, of the SC ACLU, who stated in testimony to the SC
>state legislature that such provisions are unconstitutional, and the
>bill died as a result of delaying tactics by him and other pro-choicers and
>pro-aborts.
>
>Knowing how tenacious Mark and other pro-choicers can be, I imagine they
>would tough it out by claiming that Mark made no claims as to *legal*
>requirements, only ethical ones, the risk of a lawsuit being ever-present.
>
Almost correct for a change Petey. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't speak
from a legal perspective. I do, however, speak from a medical
perspective. And the simple fact of the matter is that any invasive
procedure such as this is *always* done only after informed consent is
given. If you dispute this, then lets see some documentation. Consent
forms are part of the permanent medical record, so anyone who didn't
sign one would have an easy time proving it.

>These people should, however, recall how aggressively Susan Garvin spoke
>when I spoke of actual life-threatening malpractice by Ismail Elguindi,
>saying I'd better be praying that my information be correct because
>NUISANCE LAWSUITS BEGET LAWSUITS against the one bringing them to court.
>How is a woman supposed to document the fact that the information was
>withheld from her?  Chris Lyman figuratively snarled at me because I 
See the above Petey. Consent forms are required by law to remain a
part of the permanent medical record. It's incredibly easy to show
whether informed consent was given or not.

>happened to be "wrong"--at least according to the court decision--about
>a Native American woman being withheld information about an actual
>ovarian cancer.  And another pro-choicer (or was he a pro-abort?)
>said *drool* over the prospect of curbs being put on
>
>	SLEAZY ANTI-CHOICE LAWYERS.
>
>I wonder, by the way, whether Larry Margolis can provide the place where
>the following passage from _Aborted Women, Silent no More_ was, in his
>words, "thoroughly refuted".  The passage goes a bit further than Burger
>in the above dissent in certain aspects of the "doctor-patient
>relationship."
>
>	  Third, abortion is the only surgery for which the surgeon
>	is not obliged to inform the patient of the possible risks
>	of the procedure, or even of the exact nature of the procedure.
>	Indeed, abortion providers are the only medical personnel who
>	have a "constitutional right" to withhold information, even
>	when directly questioned by the patient.               ^^^^
>	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
> [Citations to *Akron* and *Thornburgh* follow.  Of course, this was before
>this year's *Casey* decision.]
>
>	This right is supposedly granted so that "conscientious physicians"
>	might "protect" women from being frightened by the risks they
>	face or upset by what the abortion procedure will do to their
>	unborn children.  Unfortunately, this "right" to control and
>	censure the information which is given to women also allows
>	paternalistic control, manipulation, and deceit.  *Abortion* *is*
>	*the* *only* *medical* *procedure* *for* *which* *legal* *and*
>	*medical* *codes* *deny* *the* *patient* *the* *right* *to*
>	*informed* *consent*. [p.234] [italics in the original
>					for starred words]
>
>I'd like to see Adrienne Regard's reaction to the above.  To read her 
>posts, you'd think women had no need of such information because
>they can find out all THEY CARE to know without such paternalistic
>laws.  No hint of where, except the library.  No lists of books or 
>authors for suggested reading.
>
So your entire arguement is based on a legal decision the current
standing of which you don't know. And nowhere do you provide any
evidence that any praqctitioner has ever failed to provide for
informed consent prior to an abortion.
You're whining about something which *could* happen, if your
information is correct. But you fail to show that it ever *has*
happened.
Try again Petey.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion