« Judicial Smackdown | Main | Perhaps We Do Need More Controls »

February 21, 2007

Do Women Have A Right To Informed Consent?

A New Jersey court may look at that question, and the answer may have disturbing implications for the abortion movement... and heartening ones for finally treating women as adults capable of making rational "choices":

What should doctors who perform abortions tell their patients beforehand? Of course women need to understand the risks of abortion in order to give their informed consent, as patients do for any medical procedure. But the risks of what, exactly, and to whom? In answering those questions, a case argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday could upend the practices of abortion providers in the state (and get the attention of the rest of the country) by enlisting juries in defining the nature of a fetus.

Rosa Acuna was a 29-year-old mother of two when she went to see her doctor, Sheldon Turkish, complaining of abdominal pain. An ultrasound test showed she was between five and seven weeks pregnant. Acuna says she asked Turkish if the "baby was already there," and that he responded, "don't be stupid, it is nothing but blood." Acuna signed a consent form and had an abortion. She says she then went to the library, read up on human development, and decided that her doctor had ended her relationship with a child she'd named Andres.

In 2004, Acuna sued Dr. Turkish for medical malpractice, arguing that abortion providers have a duty to tell their patients that the fetus or embryo they are carrying is "a complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being" and that the "abortion did not prevent a human being from coming into existence but actually killed an existing human being." Acuna's lawyer, Harold Cassidy, argues that they are simple statements of medical fact. What else is an embryo or fetus, if not an existing human being? Dr. Turkish's lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union argue that Cassidy's formulation is an effort to force anti-abortion ideology into the mouths of abortion providers. Women won't be left better informed about biology. They'll be made to feel as if they're killing a child.

The ACLU and radical feminists have a long history of treating women as children, however. The editorial staff wrote about informed consent in another context last summer:

Hewlett and her allies say they are just trying to correct the record in the face of widespread false optimism. Her survey found that nearly 9 out of 10 young women were confident of their ability to get pregnant into their 40s. Last fall the a.i.a. conducted a fertility-awareness survey on the women's website iVillage.com. Out of the 12,524 respondents, only one answered all 15 questions correctly. Asked when fertility begins to decline, only 13% got it right (age 27); 39% thought it began to drop at 40. Asked how long couples should try to conceive on their own before seeking help, fully 42% answered 30 months. That is a dangerous combination: a couple that imagines fertility is no problem until age 40 and tries to get pregnant for 30 months before seeing a doctor is facing very long odds of ever becoming parents.

Her group launched a public information campaign to educate women so they could make rational reproductive choices. The feminist lobby reacted furiously - and dishonestly:

"The implication is, 'I have to hurry up and have kids now or give up on ever having them,'" says Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "And that is not true for the vast majority of women."

But medical research says that IS true for the vast majority of women:

By the time a woman is married and settled enough in her career to think of starting a family, it is all too often too late. "They go to a doctor, take a blood test and are told the game is over before it even begins," says A.I.A.'s Madsen. "They are shocked, devastated and angry." Women generally know their fertility declines with age; they just don't realize how much and how fast. According to the Centers for Disease Control, once a woman celebrates her 42nd birthday, the chances of her having a baby using her own eggs, even with advanced medical help, are less t han 10%. At age 40, half of her eggs are chromosomally abnormal; by 42, that figure is 90%. "I go through Kleenex in my office like it's going out of style," says reproductive endocrinologist Michael Slowey in Englewood, N.J.

The same phenomenon has been observed with doctors who try to inform women of research that found breastfed babies are healthier.

Women are not children. Just as with smoking, drinking, or any other lifestyle choice they have the right to know both the positive and negative consequences of their medical decisions.

Like the court, I doubt Ms. Acuna was unaware that absent an abortion she would be holding a bouncing baby boy or girl in eight or nine months. But I find it quite easy to imagine she might not know at what stage of development the fetus was at the moment she chose to end its life. Abortion is a difficult decision and it is, at the very earliest stages, hard at the conceptual level for many people to distinguish from some forms of birth control. If Ms. Acuna thought of her baby as simply a cluster of a few cells, she may have made a very different decision than if she knew it possessed a nascent human form.

It does not matter whether you, I, or the abortion lobby think her decision is rational. It does not even matter whether we think it moral.

Given the current state of the law, what does seem to matter - very much - is that she understood the decision she was making. I can imagine nothing more tragic than to think she might have decided otherwise, had she fully understood her medical condition that of her child. This is one area where I have to say I completely agree with Hillary Clinton: given the current state of the law, better informing women would help to ensure abortions would be safer, still legal, and - I believe - increasingly rare.

I think this is what strikes fear into the heart of the abortion lobby. I wonder why this should be, if abortion is truly considered a woman's "choice"?

Posted by Cassandra at February 21, 2007 07:56 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1305

Comments

I think a better question is, "Does a doctor have the right to lie to a woman about her abortion?"

That is clearly what happened in this case. "It is nothing but blood," was a blatant lie.

There is obviously a reason why abortion clinics don't want women informed. They would not, "choose," abortion as often. That's why they don't want ultrasound machines.

Posted by: JannyMae at February 21, 2007 10:01 AM

It strikes fear into their hearts because it is a child.

I had to have genetic counseling with my last two children since I had my daughter after age 35 and my son at 41. Both times the Army physicians told me that they would not do abortions but they would refer me to doctors that could. Since (given my religious and personal beliefs and preferences) abortion was not an option, all the
tests could do was prepare me for the worst: Down's or a physical defect or both.

Janny, some doctors tell their patients that there are 'no products of conception.' The FETUS,
EMBRYO, doesn't exist. It is a blob.
I felt life at three months and by eight months
the baby was active and you could see it move.
Blob of cells and blood mass indeed.

Euphemisms to cover the truth: Conception and pregnancy is for the start and nurturing of LIFE.
Not a blob of tissue.

Posted by: Cricket at February 21, 2007 10:25 AM

It's kind of ironic: my daughter as a fetus was quite active. The ultrasounds confirmed that she was partying-down in there.

Now, as a 13 year old, she's just a blob that sits in front of the TV. In fact, the last time that child had an even passing relationship with labor, it involved the use of Pitocin. (rim shot)

Posted by: daveg at February 21, 2007 11:00 AM

"Rosa Acuna was a 29-year-old mother of two when she went to see her doctor, Sheldon Turkish, complaining of abdominal pain. An ultrasound test showed she was between five and seven weeks pregnant. Acuna says she asked Turkish if the "baby was already there," and that he responded, "don't be stupid, it is nothing but blood." Acuna signed a consent form and had an abortion. She says she then went to the library, read up on human development, and decided that her doctor had ended her relationship with a child she'd named Andres."

Ok, she saw on the ultrasound that she was pregnant. Did she THEN name the baby Andres? OR did that come afterward sometime -- say when she decided to sue -- as a means of "personalizing" the fetus to a potential judge and jury?

And, she was 5-7 weeks pregnant. Hmmm....the laws for abortion allow that you have a few more weeks than *5-7* to decide to have an abortion. What was the rush on hers (or the docs) part? Did she go immediately to the library? It sure looks like she did. Why? Why didn't she tell the doc, I've got to think about this....do some research, yada yada yada?

I'm not "for" abortion nor "against", I'm for a woman's right to choose for herself, because in the end, she's the one who has to reconcile with herself (and her God) whether or not what she chose was wrong or right. I just think that something smells rotten in the state of New Jersey -- and it ain't just the chemical factories.

Posted by: Sly2017 at February 21, 2007 11:05 AM

Well, it seems the debate is over when the product of conception actually becomes a, "person," that is, a human life which is worthy of protection. That's where the inconsistency in the law comes in. If a woman decides to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy, that's her, "choice," but if she is assaulted and her attacker kills her fetus, that is a crime.

Either the fetus is a human life worthy of protection from harm, or it is not. Now, some may argue that there may be a stage of, "viability," when this happens, but even if it's a, "clump of cells," it's still a living, growing human being.

The bottom line is that women need to know the truth about what they are doing before they have an abortion. By the time most women realize they are pregnant, it is no longer a, "clump of cells," that they are carrying around.

Posted by: JannyMae at February 21, 2007 11:18 AM

I tend to agree, Sly. But I also know that a LOT of very young girls have abortions, and most of them do not have ultrasounds.

And there is an important legal principle at stake here. I'm more interested in that, than in the results of the instant case, which I agree sounds a bit hokey: should a doctor tell a patient something he knows isn't true?

At week seven, a fetus has fingers and toes and eyeballs. You don't see that on an ultrasound - there isn't enough detail, at least on the ones I've seen. So she wouldn't be completely out to lunch to believe a doctor, and often when you're having one done you don't see everything the doctor sees - I didn't when I had my last mammogram and they "saw" whatever the hell it was that so terrified them that I had to waste two more months scaring the hell out of my husband before going to a fricking surgeon and finding out I was perfectly fine. Her baby would have been about the same size as whatever scared them so much on my ultrasound, just for reference purposes.

So this isn't a perfect science by any means.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 21, 2007 11:21 AM

And I totally agree with Janny Mae, FWIW, but isn't that the point?

Kinda brings it home, doesn't it? As I've said before, it's all about making an informed choice about what it is you're doing. You still know, it's just that it is harder to avoid.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 21, 2007 11:23 AM

But, FWIW, aren't the real guidelines that precipitate your decision that which lies within your heart and head in the first place? Yes, accurate information can, and usually does (for most rational beings) factor into a decision, but in the end, doesn't it still come down to what you want?
Since (given my religious and personal beliefs and preferences) abortion was not an option, all the tests could do was prepare me for the worst: Down's or a physical defect or both."

Posted by: Sly2017 at February 21, 2007 11:43 AM

I realize that your point is along the "bigger picture" line of thinking, but something tells me, in this case, this woman would have aborted anyway. And still tried to sue. Call me a cynic if you wouldst, but people are gonna think and do what they do and think. All of the information in the Library of Congress is not going to change that.

Posted by: Sly2017 at February 21, 2007 11:50 AM

You'll never convince me it's not a child. Anyone see this story about the 10oz. 9.5 inch infant that has survived? She was born at about 22 weeks, and shouldn't even be born YET, based on the due date...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at February 21, 2007 12:15 PM

I can't count the number of cases I've abstracted in which the woman was assured that abortion just removed or "some tissue, like a blood clot." Then the woman either expels fetal parts (or sometimes an entire mangled fetus), or she sees a copy of "A Child is Born" and learns the truth.

The abortion lobby opposes offering women a chance to see the ultrasound before her abortion. If it's about "informed choice," why should she be denied a chance to see what she's about to destroy?

I remember a billboard in California, showing the aborted fetus held by an adult hand so just his little feet showed. There was a news story about it. They interviewed the director of the largest area abortion clinic. She said, "We've been getting hundreds of angry calls from women wanting to know why they weren't told this before their abortions. We want that billboard down!"

That was when it struck me that the lies my babysitter had been told were systematic, and not just a flukey thing.

(I tried to provide links, but your filter considers them "questionable content".)

Posted by: Christina at February 21, 2007 12:18 PM

I'm still trying to understand how the abortion lobby can be for abortion, against capital punishment, and think rapists/pedophiles can be rehabilitated.

This cheapening of human life and lack of personal responsibility, on the part of both sperm donor and sperm recipient, is the hallmark of feminine victimization. Abortion has a place in certain circumstances. It is not a form of birth control the feminists would have us believe it is.

Posted by: vet66 at February 21, 2007 12:20 PM

Cassandra, telling her that there's a living member of her species in her uterus isn't telling her a lie. It's bland truth. What else would it be, a hamster?

It's a value judgment to say that the particular member of the species in her uterus is disposable or deserving of protection, but the fact is that it's a young human.

Posted by: Christina at February 21, 2007 12:20 PM

Christina, the "lie" I referred to was telling her it was just blood.

And your links were not blocked because of the content - I have a spam filter and there was probably something in there that triggered it. I don't have any control over that, unfortunately. It is triggered by either the domain or by too many links in one comment.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 21, 2007 12:28 PM

In answer to your question Sly, I happen to think that if more women were informed AND if they weren't rushed into the decision, there would be far fewer abortions.

And I think that would be a good thing.

I also think the downstream implications of that might well be that women would take greater care not to get pregnant in the first place if they didn't want a child.

Not ALL women. Not all the time. But some women. Education is always the best method of birth control. You want people to be informed and to know what they are doing, to be confident and in control. Some will still be irresponsible, but at least they screwed up knowing what they were doing.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 21, 2007 12:33 PM

That, Cass, is my point exactly. It seems to me that the underlying (real?) arguement in the abortion issue is not the decision that a woman comes to as to whether or not to keep the baby, but the decision we (society) perceive that she should come to. Hence all the wrangling about "when" the fetus becomes a *human being*. Of course it's a human being. As Christina put it, What else would it be, a hamster? (No, JHD, we are NOT going to get into beastiality) The ultimate decision to remove ( and therefore kill) the fetus -- viable human being or a bunch of cells -- still lies in what the woman believes at the time. You can show her the body of the fetus with fully formed hands and feet, et al., and she can still believe that it is not a "baby". I've known women who've aborted pregnancies and truly regretted it later. I've also known women who, for personal or religious beliefs, have carried to term and truly regretted it. These were intelligent women who knew what they were doing - at the time. But, as hindsight is always 20/10, their decisions weighed heavily on them as time passed.
IMHO, abortion is a moral not a legal issue. And, as we've seen through other posts on this site, some people, even when given the world of knowledge at their fingertips, will refuse to utilize it when contemplating emotionally-charged choices -- be they abortion, Constitutional rights, or the necessity of war,to name but a few. They will do what they believe to be "right" -- be that right for them or right for the fetus. It lies within them and where their moral compass points.
And while we may want them to make the right decision (our right decision, of course, whoever *our* happens to be at the time), in the end, they will think and do as they do and think.

Posted by: Sly2017 at February 21, 2007 01:18 PM

Actually, a pretty strong feminist argument can be made AGAINST abortion, given that it allows men to escape any duty they have toward that future child, and in fact encourages men to push for an abortion to escape that responsibility.

Posted by: Deb at February 21, 2007 02:12 PM

I don't think I argued that premise, or that I have ever argued it even (but that's something I think you'd have had to read past posts of mine on this subject, not that there are many of those, to know). It was implicit in my words:

It does not matter whether you, I, or the abortion lobby think her decision is rational. It does not even matter whether we think it moral.

But given that women currently have that CHOICE because of our current laws, would we not prefer that they make it with *accurate* rather than inaccurate information?

You may believe that not a single person would decide differently if they knew. I disagree. I think many people teeter on the edge. Accurate knowledge will not change some people's decisions. It will change others'. The influence of that knowledge, strictly speaking, will not be a "rational" one, because when you really stop to think about it, from a logical and moral standpoint it matters not one whit if you stop the child's life when it is two cells or 20,000 cells - a potential human being's life still ended.

However, the likelihood that that 'clump of cells' will seem real to a woman is greater the later in the pregnancy the decision takes place, and the more she knows about the baby, the greater the chance she will stop and think before ending that life.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 21, 2007 02:53 PM

Oh, and my last comment was in response to Sly :)

Posted by: Cassandra at February 21, 2007 02:55 PM

I'm not going there - I get in enough fights over this subject within the family - "there" being abortion.

OTOH, the assumption of vile behavior on the part of PP is a bit over the top. Think about it; if your goal is to improve contraception, do you emphasize that fertility declines after 29, or do you emphasize the fact that 50 years olds can and do get pregnant? You don't have to attribute a desire to abort every fetus in the land to PP to understand why they don't talk about fertility declines - that sort of talk would encourage women to become sloppy about their contraceptive actions, and that's not what they're there for. I remember quite well my 44 year old aunt saying, "I didn't think I could get pregnant anymore." She has 3 grandkids from that "didn't think".

Posted by: bud at February 21, 2007 03:36 PM

Oh bud... don't say that :p

Informed decision-making means you tell women that your overall *chances* decline for over 40 women but that individual probabilities don't mean much if you happen to be the one who does get pregnant.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 21, 2007 03:43 PM

bud, you tell them both. You don't provide half the picture in order to advance your agenda. You may attach greater weight to particular facts, but you do have to present all of them.

Posted by: Masked Menace at February 21, 2007 04:33 PM

"It does not matter whether you, I, or the abortion lobby think her decision is rational. It does not even matter whether we think it moral."

My bad, I missed that completely in my initial reading.(Apologies)

However, while I don't believe that nobody would ever change their mind (and I don't believe I implied that in my comment), I do, however, believe that a person's decision on this subject has been made mentally long prior to the actual need to exercise it. Which isn't to say that once the need did arise, that a more informed person, when faced with the actuality of a pregnancy, wouldn't change their mind. I just think that, with respect to this subject, a vast majority of people are gonna do what they initially decided -- informed decision or no.
That being said, I believe that Ms. Acuna already had a mindset towards abortion, else, when told about the pregnancy, why would she even bother to ask about the viablility? The question of "is the baby already there?" would never have crossed her mind.

Posted by: Sly2017 at February 21, 2007 05:35 PM

Sly, my question for the abortion lobby is how they can reconcile slogans such as "Trust women!" with the idea that women need to be protected from ever finding out what an abortion they're considering will destroy.

If all abortion really does is remove valueless tissue, then letting the woman look at the ultrasound and showing her Lennart Nilson photos of gestating "tissue" ought to strengthen her resolve to be rid of it, right? But if what abortion does is destroy what the woman would consider a baby if she could see it, how is it "trusting" her to deny her the chance?

My babysitter believed that life begins when the heart starts beating. Under what framework can the abortion lobby justify denying her the information that her 8-week embryo had a beating heart?

It's this "Don't worry your pretty little head" paternalistic attitude that is, among other things, bewildering.

Posted by: Christina at February 21, 2007 05:44 PM

"OTOH, the assumption of vile behavior on the part of PP is a bit over the top. "

Bud, it was Planned Parenthood that told my babysitter that her 8-week fetus was just "like a blood clot." Vicki Conroy, who runs a legal referral service for abortion-injured women once had a client that had gone to the same PP my babysitter had gone to. Like my babysitter, she asked about "the baby" and was told that there was nothing but "tissue that looks like a blood clot."

The woman went home and passed an intact 12-week fetus. When she went back to PP, angry and wanting to be told why they'd lied to her, the receptionist snatched the fetus out of her hands, threw it into the trash can and snapped, "Of course it's a baby! If you had wanted to know that beforehand you'd have gone to one of those antichoice places!"

I've seen too much of this sort of thing from PP to think that it's a flukey thing.

Posted by: Christina at February 21, 2007 05:47 PM

I wonder how leftists square their blood lust for abortion and their ridicule of breeders with their smug and shallow reduction of human nature to natural selection and survival of the fittest. One would think leftists would see child bearing as the most valuable thing a woman could do, since they reduce humanity to purely zoological dimensions anyway.

Indeed, what possible survival value, from a purely animal perspective, is there in being a leftist? Not satisfied with aborting themselves out of existence, they seem dead set to get us all killed by their gutless pacifism.

What an un-natural, destructive little cult liberalism is.

Posted by: Geoff at February 21, 2007 05:50 PM

Its really no wonder why the leftists you've invented are really unnatural. Can't you just make another presumption which answers your dillemma?

Posted by: annak at February 21, 2007 06:59 PM

Christina,
I'm not sure where exactly in my comments I ever advocated not informing women. A woman's choice to abort or not is a personal, moral decision that, quite frankly, is none of my business -- and with respect to my body, it is nobody else's business either. I did, however, state that it's my belief that, informed or not, people have already made a "gut" decision about whether or not they would abort long before the pregnancy occurs.
In today's world of instant information on any subject, I find the attitude that "somebody should have told me ..." a morally reprehensible excuse given the weight of the decision in and of itself. However, to obligate anyone other than the one faced with this decision with the responsibility of providing every side of the issue is as wrongheaded as making such a decision without having all the facts in the first place. IMHO, the aquisition of that information, just as the decision itself, is the responsiblity of one person and one person only.

Posted by: Sly2017 at February 21, 2007 07:28 PM

Do Women Have A Right To Informed Consent?


YES!

Posted by: unkawill at February 21, 2007 08:55 PM

AND the service providers should be required to provide the scientific facts.

IMO and since I am male, I don't know how much my opinion SHOULD matter, I would like to see at least a three day "cooling off" period before said "services" are performed.

Posted by: unkawill at February 21, 2007 09:01 PM

I don't know how much your opinion should matter either, son. But when you're ready to stop being male and become a man, people will listen to it regardless.

They may not like it, but hey -- they don't have to.

Posted by: Grim at February 21, 2007 10:14 PM

It might be "your" body, but a fetus doesn't get there spontaneously. Some man was involved. Shouldn't he have a vote about what happens to his child?

Also, PP's founder was a bigoted, racist, white supremacist. She advocated eugenics, and saw PP as a way to reach that end. This isn't the link I was looking for, but if you don't know about Margaret Sanger, it will shed a bit of light on this Nazi sympathizer...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at February 21, 2007 10:43 PM

"Some man was involved. Shouldn't he have a vote about what happens to his child?"

Now, I've always thought so.

Posted by: Grim at February 21, 2007 11:16 PM

I gotta agree with the guy having some kind of say in if his kid gets to live-- but I'm the kind of fascist sicko who thinks that mebbie we should let women control their own bodies.
Starting with not murdering them before birth.
(I'll even put guys into the same group, just to be fair.)

Posted by: Sailorette at February 22, 2007 03:00 AM

you poke it you own it.

Posted by: annak at February 22, 2007 07:57 AM

A blood clot by any other name is still a blood clot. But an embryo is NOT a blood clot. It is a questions of semantics; is it a baby or not?

Posted by: Cricket at February 22, 2007 08:01 AM

you poke it you own it

Hah! :)

Posted by: Cassandra at February 22, 2007 08:09 AM

Strange... I dont think any competant doctor was refer to an embryo as 'blood' for the simple reason that it isn't, in biological terms. Blood is a tissue - a suspension of particular cell types and other things in plasma. An embryo is most definately not blood.

But there is *one* place where the doctor might have gotten that exact expression...

"Then WE made the sperm into a clot of congealed
blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump;
then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh." - Koran 23:14

I wonder if this doctor is a muslim?


On informed consent in general: Its unworkable, because there is no way to achieve agreement on what 'informed' means. What pro-lifers consider accurate, pro-choicers consider emotional blackmail and propaganda. What pro-choicers consider accurate, pro-lifers consider lying by ommision and propaganda. And somewhere in the middle is a fair, accurate set of information... which both pro-lifers and pro-choicers consider propaganda for the opposing side :>

Posted by: Suricou Raven at February 22, 2007 08:39 AM

I don't know what to think about this story.... I find it REALLY hard to believe that anyone in America is this ignorant of the facts of life.

But even if they are, while ignorance may be bliss, it doesn't shield you from the consequences of your actions - not in the legal universe anyway.

Didn't know breaking and entering was against the law? Tough. You're still guilty as sin.

Didn't understand paragraph 7, of section 3 of the contract you just signed? Tough. You're an adult. You signed the contract - not under duress - you are stuck.

This is a case where she wants to blame someone because all her life she neglected to learn the least little bit about life and how it works. Someone to blame apart from herself that is.

How far do you have to have your head in the sand to not have heard at least some of the debate about "when does life begin?" I guess those reruns of Survivor were just too important.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at February 22, 2007 09:45 AM

"I guess those reruns of Survivor were just too important."

Well, not that important if poking took place..

Posted by: Cricket at February 22, 2007 09:55 AM

Maybe she was overcome by Post-poking Depression and lost all power of coherent thought.

Heh.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 22, 2007 10:10 AM

Zendo- yes, there *are* folks that ignorant. I've had multi-page arguments on if the fetus is alive *shortly before birth*, if it's human at the same point, etc.

In high school, a large number of folks were flatly ignorant of the biological meaning of life. Generally, folks seem to go by the "I can't see it, it's not real!" theory.

IF she really is so ignorant, she did what you're *supposed* to-- ask an expert. Who she is claiming told her it was a blood clot. Not the same as the legal deal of "ignorance of the law is not an excuse."

Posted by: Sailorette at February 22, 2007 11:32 AM

Deb,

Never underestimate the stupidity or ignorance of the human race.

When you come from an area like I do where barely 1/2 the adult population has a high school degree, you'd be surprised at how little and adult can know.

And while I've got advanced degrees and am perfectly competent to do my own research on the pros and cons of any medical procedure, I don't believe that I should have to. That's part of what I'm paying the doctor for, to educate me. While the mother should have known that the fetus was not "a blood clot", that doesn't make the doctor's statement not fraudulent.

Posted by: Masked MenaceĀ© at February 22, 2007 03:38 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)