The New York state abortion law
Here’s my quick take on the law just passed on abortion in New York state.
My first observation is that it’s an attempt to get a law in place that will set state rules for abortions if Roe v. Wade is overruled. I doubt very much that the latter will occur. But anyway, that’s the stated reason, and if there really is a repeal that isn’t just for some small element of Roe, and the right to set the abortion law is thrown back entirely on the states, each state will be passing such laws and they will be widely varied in their effect.
What are the main changes the New York law puts in place? The most controversial one—and rightly so—is the provision about late-term abortions. Roe and the later cases related to it don’t allow states to ban abortions prior to 24 weeks, but after that states are given a certain amount of leeway (see this for a state-by-state description of the current laws). New York’s prior law allowed late-term abortions when the fetus wasn’t viable and/or to save the life of the mother. The new law adds the provision that late-term abortions can be performed to preserve the mother’s health, and that includes mental health. Some other states have a similar provision (19 states, with another 20 limiting the “health” part to physical health).
So the New York law is hardly unique in this respect.
I’m troubled by abortion and have written about the topic quite a few times before (see these, and see this for a more personal story).
Late-term abortions are both especially horrific and especially sad—as well as an enormous flash point. Many of them occur with a baby that was wanted. Late-term abortions are rare, but some of them occur because a fetus has expired or is so malformed that its life would be short and full of suffering, and some occur in order to save the life of the mother.
Especially troubling is that provision about the “health” of the mother. This, in my opinion, amounts basically to abortion on demand of a fetus that is most likely viable. I’m old enough to recall very well the situation prior to Roe, when in certain states at certain times (I forget exactly which ones), abortion was banned and there was a legal exception made to save the life or health of the mother, and that included psychological health (at the time, these were almost never late-term abortions). Back then the psychological health provision was used to mean almost anything a psychiatrist said it meant. In practice, it could just mean that a woman was very upset. It seems to me that the psychological health provision could be used that way now in New York to allow late-term abortions essentially on demand, which would be a terrible thing.
More:
The updated New York law leaves it to doctors to decide when a woman’s health is at risk. Opponents argued that the law should have defined what constitutes a threat to a pregnant woman’s health.
Republican lawmakers say the change gives too much discretion to doctors, and could open the door to late-term abortions that are not medically necessary.
Here’s another fairly major change for New York:
The [new law] allows licensed nurse practitioners, physician assistants and licensed midwives to provide abortions, in addition to physicians.
The bill’s authors say the change is essential for rural parts of the state where women have limited access to doctors and it could take weeks before they can see a doctor.
Opponents say the change extends beyond the scope of Roe v. Wade and will ultimately result in an increase in the number of abortions in the state.
Senate Republicans argued that by allowing non-physicians to perform abortions, it will endanger the health of more women. The bill’s sponsors noted that most abortions today occur when a doctor administers a pill to a patient early in a pregnancy.
Would it also allow non-physicians to perform late-trimester abortions? I’ve tried to find the answer and so far haven’t discovered it. If so, though, it would seem even worse.
So far I’ve also been unable to locate whether the new law contains a second-physician provision for late-term abortions. This is what I mean:
Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.
14 states require that a second physician attend the procedure to treat a fetus if it is born alive in all or some circumstances.
9 states…require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary in all or some circumstances.
New York’s old law—the one that allowed late-term abortions only to save the life of the mother (or when the fetus was not viable) required a second physician to attend, according to the chart at that site. So it used to be one of those 14 states in the quote above. Whether it remains so, I do not know.
Not since Buck v. Bell have we witnessed such a gleeful celebration in performance of plain old barbarity in the US. If it was the German Nazis who learned what they needed from Buck v. Bell we may now be apt to wonder who will learn what from this act of ‘law’?
It is my understanding that nothing resembling an abortion is ever necessary to save the life of the mother in a normal pregnancy. There was a case in a Catholic hospital in Arizona a few years ago. An expectant mother was having cardiac problems. The doctors wanted to perform an abortion, and convinced a nun and a senior official at the hospital to approve the procedure. The surgeons were fired and the bishop excommunicated the nun.
OB/GYNs with far more experience pointed out that the fetus was far too small to put any serious stress on the mother and that there were other ways to control her blood pressure. By the time the fetus was large enough to put any remotely dangerous stress on the mother’s heart the fetus would have been viable and could have been delivered by cesarean section. Other Catholic doctors who weighed in said they couldn’t be sure why the Arizona doctors decided to perform an abortion, but the only reason they could see was that it would have been easier given the small size of the fetus.
There are times when it’s permissible for Catholic hospitals to intervene, such as in cases of ectopic pregnancies (i.e. when the zygote implants in the fallopian tube or anywhere outside the uterus). But Catholic doctrine prohibits direct abortions. Based on the principle of “double effect” the doctors can treat the mother even though the treatment will have the secondary effect of resulting in the death of the fetus. But the intention is not to abort the baby. So in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, such as when the zygote implants in the fallopian tube, that damages the fallopian tube. The doctors can treat the damaged organ, but there are certain procedures they can use to do so but not others.
It may seem like hypocrisy on our part, but the principle of double effect comes into play in a number of circumstances. For instance, Catholics aren’t pacifists. That’s why the Swiss Guard and a Gendarme force is at the Vatican. If they have to shoot someone they can only do so to stop a criminal, unjust attack on another person or themselves. The intent is never to kill though. The intent is to stop.
Abortion simply isn’t health care. Given all the anti-Catholic hatred we see from the left these days I can guarantee you that if abortion was ever necessary to save the life of the mother, and Catholic hospitals refused to perform an abortion, the left would move to shut down Catholic hospitals in a heartbeat. But the fact that Catholic hospitals don’t perform abortions and still get results just as good as hospitals that do perform abortions means the left doesn’t have an excuse to shut them down.
As far as protecting the mental health of a mother, that’s a monstrous idea. What sort of mental condition can only be cured by not only ending the pregnancy but making sure the infant is dead. I mean, it’s possible to end a pregnancy without killing the baby, as I mentioned above. I’ve seen video of Planned Parenthood reps testifying before state legislators against bills that would require doctors to treat the baby if it’s born alive. The PP reps would just mindlessly repeat their mantra that “It’s between the patient and the doctor.” The state legislators would just ask, “Isn’t the baby that was born alive the patient now?” The PP reps just couldn’t grasp the point that if a woman wants to have an abortion then she also has the right to have the doctor make sure the child is dead.
Pure evil.
In an era where snowflakes receive “safe spaces” on campus, and psychologists determine that masculinity is “toxic,” I am skeptical of allowing an abortion for the “mental health” of the mother.
I’ve seen video of Planned Parenthood reps testifying before state legislators against bills that would require doctors to treat the baby if it’s born alive. The PP reps would just mindlessly repeat their mantra that “It’s between the patient and the doctor.” The state legislators would just ask, “Isn’t the baby that was born alive the patient now?”
Steve, that’s exactly it. I would like every policy discussion of mid to late term abortion to force an answer to this question: Is a woman entitled to the termination of her pregnancy (this is all that is logically necessary to preserve women’s right to bodily autonomy), or is she entitled to a dead fetus? Pro-life people and politicians are always always put on the spot to discuss what happens in the case of pregnancy from rape or incest but pro-choice are never forced to confront the stark question of whether it is the mother’s prerogative to decree that her child will die regardless of whether it can be safely delivered alive. Then you get into the weeds, if the mother may insist on death, as to what the father may insist on. He doesn’t get a vote while the baby is gestating, because of maternal bodily autonomy. Once the fetus is out of the mother’s body, then all kinds of competing rights can come into play.
We were very Soviet Union conscious in my family, because among other reasons, my mother’s job was resettling Soviet refugees. She relayed some odd anecdotal details surprising to me: the average woman in the Soviet Union had had 17 abortions, they believed birth control was unhealthy, they never got around to manufacturing sanitary pads or tampons, women’s most popular career choice was prostitution and religion was outlawed.
Oh well, the modern leftist says it just wasn’t done right yet, they’ll totally nail utopia this time.
There is no such thing as a late-term abortion that is needed to “save the life of the mother.” Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.
An article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology describing the methods used for late-term abortion (at >20 weeks):
I truly don’t understand how any medical person could do that except under the most dire circumstances.
Mike Smith:
This article describes one such case, reportedly in which time was so important and the patient’s situation so precarious that there probably was no time to have prepped her and done a surgery.
Not being a medical person, I have no way to judge how necessary it was to do it that way rather than a Caesarean in which the child would have had a chance to live . But I think that in very rare cases it might be the case that waiting would kill both mother and child.
Ann and others:
My father-in-law was a doctor, and he kept his old medical books into old age (although I don’t think he ever looked at them at that point). One day I was idly looking through an obstetrics book from the mid-1930s (which I bet had been written earlier than that) that described all sorts of procedures to save the life of the mother, involving cutting up the baby before delivery. I’ll spare you the details. It was sometimes considered necessary, and it wasn’t really considered abortion. It was considered a medical procedure, unfortunate and tragic, but necessary to save the mother’s life when a labor went bad. I think those were the circumstances under which it was done—when a baby was stuck in some way and could not be delivered, but was no longer in position to be delivered by Caesarean.
I looked at the book about forty years ago, so I don’t remember all the details. It was horrifying, but it was part of medicine even back then.
Neo, given the advances in medical technology a fetus reaches the age of viability much earlier than even in 1990 let alone in 1930. As it stands now there simply no reason to terminate a normal pregnancy via an abortion to save the mother’s life.
Steve57:
I already linked to one description of a case that gave a reason.
My own position is that abortion is acceptable only when it is necessary* to save the life of the mother and her capacity for human functionality which is not disabled to the point that she cannot survive on her own.
*We are humans and not omniscient, so there is room to argue over whether a given case rises to the level of “necessity.” (And I take the view that contrary to doctrine, there is one word in the constitution that should be ignored: the word “absolutely” modifying — modifying — the word “necessary,” whose use implies that “necessary” does not really mean “necessary.”)
The point about maintaining the functional capacity of the mother is that she has a right to defend her own ability to survive as a functioning human being. It’s not unjust to ask her to forgo the murder of the fœtus/baby lodging temporarily in her womb, just because she might lose her leg (say). I’m assuming a case where she doesn’t absolutely have to have it in order to survive and support herself without making demands on others, and note that that doesn’t mean she can’t ask for or accept help.
There might be a situation in which the mother’s mental functioning is being irremediably and seriously diminished by the existence of the baby in her womb. I think this would be very difficult to prove, but if it were, that would rise to the level of serious impairment of her capacity to “survive as a functioning human being.” Of course, the very fact of pregnancy causes hormonal changes, changes in the endocrine system, and changes is the way the mother feels about herself and about life in general. Neo and likely many readers know more about that than I do, but it seems to me that a lifelong and seriously incapacitating clinical depression could result from pregnancy in a given case. But I don’t see how you could predict this, at least not with today’s level of knowledge. Then again, “Medicine is more art than science,” so they say, and it sounds right to me. I’d think the smart money would say that she probably won’t suffer this particular tragedy (and serious clinical depression is a tragedy, if it’s untreatable).
That’s the posish, stated baldly and without further discussion about whether and what caveats there need to be. And since this is the Real World, inevitably there do need to be some.
.
There’s no justice in aborting a baby who’s the result rape. The baby is completely innocent and not in any way a party to the crime. (Especially since it was nonexistent at the time!). ….Still, with all my heart I sympathize with the victim who wants to abort it.
Incest. Same thing, not the baby’s wrongdoing — if in fact it is wrongdoing. Rape, of course, makes the incest already a crime — a crime against the mother, that is.
In any case, Neo, I agree with you that the greatest compassion for the mothers in the various circumstances and with the various outcomes that you describe in your posting about your personal experience.
.
I will note that the aim is to try to make laws that are just in the strict sense, which means that they’re made according to logic applied to real-life experience.
And I reckon that means “justice tempered with mercy.” The trick is finding the right balance. Especially since I personally don’t think you can have much real mercy in the absence of justice. Not just as an abstract matter either.
Still, humans are like hobbits: they can be “tough as old tree roots,” surprising you with the strength of their real attachment to compassion and mercy and some sort of drive to be just, despite whatever horrible circumstances they find themselves in.
Sigh…no Edit this time. Please mentally remove all the boldface above except that above the first section break (the dot).
If the mother is going to die, and the baby cannot yet survive outside the womb, then the operation is done to save the life which can be saved. The situation described in that USA Today article is an extreme situation in which medical intervention was necessary. It’s also extremely rare. It’s not what the New York law has in mind, since the law also makes a medical doctor unnecessary. It would be incredibly naive to think that the law will only be invoked as a last resort in desperate situations.
Kate:
As I wrote in my post, I’m not at all sure that according to the new NY law late-term abortions can be done without a doctor. The new law allows people other than doctors to do some sort of abortions, but they may be only the ones prior to 24 weeks. I couldn’t find anything that dealt with that issue specifically.
Even before 24 weeks, a woman can get into serious medical trouble with abortion. Pregnancy is a significant medical condition and its termination is not trivial.
From a moral point of view, I consider this new law an abomination.
From a practical political point of view, most European nations allow abortion on demand through thirteen weeks and thereafter only for very serious medical problems. Polls (for what they’re worth) in the US show that a large majority support that model. The NY law swings it the other direction — although maybe New Yorkers get what they vote for. Roe v. Wade prohibits states who want more restrictions from enacting them, but permits this New York approach.
Under the New York law, if a pregnant woman loses her baby as a result of (for example) domestic abuse, the miscarriage will not be considered homicide. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the law will recognize only one murder, not two. And the abortion procedure will no longer require a doctor? Yet this law purports to support women.
Highly recommend the excellent movie Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, the true story of the infamous Philadelphia abortion doctor who killed numerous poor women and babies in his very unsanitary facility. When it was released to theaters it sank like a stone as it was barely mentioned or reviewed in the MSM. It will be available on DVD on Amazon Feb. 5:
https://smile.amazon.com/Gosnell-Americas-Biggest-Serial-Killer/dp/B07KBQN1MM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1548467418&sr=8-3&keywords=gosnell+dvd
A number of years ago, I had a miscarriage in the 5th month. No doctor on my reputable list would touch me for the D & C. I had to go home and wait for labor to ensue. After a week, I did go into labor and expelled the perfectly formed baby boy at home but the umbilical cord remained attached to my uterus. My husband took me to the emergency room where I almost bled to death. Obviously I survived. I know from personal experience that late-term abortion is considered dangerous to the mother.
Sharon, I’m very sorry you lost him.
So sorry for your loss, Sharon.
Neo, yes, I read the article at the link. But sometimes doctors don’t act solely in the best interests of the patient. Sometimes they have their own interests in mind, particularly when they’re worried about legal liability. I’d require a second opinion before I’d concede that abortion was absolutely necessary as opposed to simply the safest and most convenient course of action for the doctors.
The case I referred to earlier involved a case in 2009 concerning a woman in a Catholic hospital in Phoenix who was 11 weeks pregnant. She had a pre-existing cardio-pulmonary condition. Rather than treat the cardio-pulmonary condition the hospital’s vice president, a nun, and her doctors decided to abort the baby. It was in fact the easiest and most convenient course of action for her caregivers and was not actually medically necessary. This was confirmed when the Bishop’s medical ethics board determined that the nun hadn’t told the truth about what clinched their decision to abort the child. She had said the placenta was diseased. In fact, the placenta was healthy although apparently it was getting an unhealthy amount of hormones in the amniotic fluid which did exacerbate the mother’s condition. Still every condition the woman had was treatable but they had to contend that the placenta was diseased because Catholic theology allows for treating diseased organs in pregnant women. For instance, the classic example is if a an expectant mother has uterine cancer then Catholic hospitals can treat the cancer. That will kill the fetus but that’s not the intended outcome. But then aborting the fetus had nothing to do with treating an allegedly diseased organ.
The nun was one of those liberal, pro-abortion nuns. The kind who never wears a habit. One of those “Catholics for Choice” types who headed a social justice organization called “Networks” who clashed with the bishops before because of her pro-abortion views. Frankly, I don’t know why the woman’s doctors didn’t more closely monitor and treat the cardio-pulmonary condition given that it was pre-existing and they were aware of it. I definitely got the impression the doctors were more worried about being sued for malpractice and the nun who was one of the top administrators at the hospital was extremely concerned about legal liability as well.
The Bishop rightly stripped the hospital of its Catholic status and determined the nun had excommunicated herself since neither the hospital’s parent company, Catholic Healthcare West, nor the nun had any intention of adhering to Catholic doctrines. Catholic Healthcare West, which is also operated by liberal, pro-abortion nuns, made it crystal clear that they wouldn’t abide by the Church’s moral teachings when they refused to agree to adhere to Catholic doctrine. That was one of the Bishop’s three conditions the company had to agree to in order for the hospital to retain its Catholic status. The Bishop only withdrew the hospital’s Catholic status when they refused to assure him that they would adhere to the Church’s moral teachings.
But then given the Catholic clergy’s sex scandals it appears almost nobody has any intention of adhering to Catholic moral teachings. But I digress; other more experienced Catholic OB/GYNs on the Bishop’s medical ethics board determined the abortion was not necessary to save the life of the mother. It was not the fetus nor the healthy placenta (which the crew at the hospital falsely insisted was diseased) that threatened to kill the woman. It was her cardio-pulmonary condition that had nothing to do with her pregnancy that admittedly was causing her serious health problems. But it was nothing the doctors couldn’t have treated separately.
So I have to wonder about the case you cited.
Steve 57:
Of course doctors sometimes don’t act in the best interests of their patients. But you had written something quite different: “…there simply no reason to terminate a normal pregnancy via an abortion to save the mother’s life.” That sort of absolute statement does not appear to be true, and the fact that sometimes doctors don’t make good decisions, or decisions in their patients’ interests, doesn’t mean that there is simply no reason to terminate a normal pregnancy via an abortion to save the mother’s life.
Of course, it also depends on what you mean by “normal pregnancy.” It is, of course, not a “normal pregnancy” if the mother’s life is in grave and immediate danger.
To put it in secular terms, “First, do no harm.” If a woman is having serious health problems during pregnancy first treat the health problems. By resorting to abortion as if it’s a valid medical treatment then the doctor is doing harm and violating his or her Hippocratic Oath.
Neo, I didn’t see your response. According to the article at your link the woman had developed preeclampsia. I know Catholic OB/GYNs who have thirty or forty years experience and have delivered thousands of babies. They’ve never seen a case where preeclampsia seriously threatened an expectant mother’s life. In fact I don’t know a single doctor who has ever seen a case this serious. And the condition is extremely common. The only reason why this woman’s preeclampsia could have gotten so serious is because it was left untreated. Which makes my point; it’s never necessary to terminate a normal pregnancy with anything resembling an abortion.
Because it’s so easily detected and controlled with medication. I have no idea why her doctor(s) didn’t monitor her for high blood pressure and for protein in her urine. That’s a sign of kidney damage. Preeclampsia can cause damage to major organs, particularly the kidneys and liver, which fits her description of her condition. But it never should have gotten to the point where they shut down. Which is why Catholic physicians aggressively monitor for this condition. And it’s why every Catholic physician I know has never seen such a severe case. She simply didn’t get adequate medical care. Carrying more than one child is a classic sign that a woman may develop preeclampsia. Since she was carrying twins that put her at high risk for preeclampsia (technically pre-eclampsia which can lead to the more serious eclampsia when the woman starts to have seizures) her obstetrician should have told her what signs to look for and monitored her more carefully. Sometimes preeclampsia has no visible symptoms, which is why her doctor should have told her to take her blood pressure at home daily. A very common condition that is so easily detected and controlled isn’t evidence that abortions are ever necessary to save the life and health of the mother. It is evidence that OB/GYNs need to be at least competent at their jobs or they (not the pregnancy) will endanger their patients’ lives.
Steve57:
Not every woman goes for prenatal care. Maybe the first time she saw doctors she was in the delivery room.
But actually, you are wrong in your assumption that it can always be controlled even when a woman does get decent prenatal care. Not true. Read up on it.
Sharon W, my deep condolences on your loss. Women who suffer miscarriages, of whom I know several, often don’t get the full sympathy they need.
Neo is right to say that sometimes preeclampsia cases are not properly controlled. My daughter had a frightening late pregnancy and emergency c-section this year, and two visits to emergency rooms after birth. Her OBGYN practice didn’t properly treat her, however. They looked at blood and urine tests and didn’t look at the patient, whose blood pressure was not in good control and who had extensive and visible edema. She has changed doctors, and fortunately did not have long-term damage.
My first pregnancy was largely healthy, but after 5 months I developed edema, and at 36 weeks I developed preeclampsia. Treatment in the hospital did not rectify the preeclampsia; only delivering the baby helped the process reverse. It also turned out that the placenta was dying, and we have no idea why. My son was 5 lbs 5 oz, with some jaundice, but he was ready to leave the hospital days before I was. And even with blood pressure medication and bed rest, it still took a month for my blood pressure to recover.
My second pregnancy was perfectly healthy, with a full-term baby. My third pregnancy, I had a harder time throughout and developed preeclampsia again, and delivered at 38 weeks (a very healthy boy), but did not recover swiftly. In fact, I developed HELLP syndrome, which is very rare and often lethal. It took months to recover from that, and I still (5 years later) must take blood pressure medication.
Just pointing out that preeclampsia does not always respond to treatment while the mother is pregnant. My preeclampsia could not be brought under control while I was pregnant, because the medicines safe to use while pregnant were not getting the job done. And with HELLP syndrome, I had to stop nursing my baby because my medicine would have gone through breast milk and harmed my child.
I’m grateful to have three healthy boys and to still be alive. I’m blessed my doctors were committed to keeping *all* of us alive.
OKBecky:
Glad it worked out for you in the end.
Pre-eclampsia is a reason for c-section, not abortion. There are almost no conditions that require third trimester abortion for medical reasons. At least, I can’t think of any. We used to see women pregnant at the beginning of the third trimester who had undiagnosed mitral stenosis and they would go into acute heart failure. They were usually Mexican immigrants who had had no medical care. I doubt that any are seen today.
I did have one woman with metastatic melanoma who refused abortion. After we did a c-section, her melanoma melted away. The story is in my book.
They’ve never seen a case where preeclampsia seriously threatened an expectant mother’s life.
Not true but the condition develops in the third trimester and the treatment is c-section, not abortion. My niece, who is a 40 year old OR nurse, had pretty severe pre-eclampsia. Her baby is fine and now three. She had a milder case last fall with her second baby which is also fine. Both c-sections.
I have a 38 year old daughter who is pregnant for the first time and her mother and I are keeping a close watch on her.
It isn’t really pre-eclampsia that threatens life. It is eclampsia which includes seizures. Pre-eclampsia just warns you.
Mike K:
Yes, the remedy is a C-section, and that usually is what is done.
We are talking about very very rare cases, however, such as the one described in the link I offered. I don’t know enough about the medical details of the case, but it seems that it had something to do with details connected with that particular case that meant time was of the essence.
Mike K:
Your book sounds interesting.
I am pretty sure that poor immigrants who don’t get any prenatal care are still seen today. Maybe even more often than before.
Mike K, it is true that of the Catholic OB/GYNs, or really any OB/GYNs I know, some with 30-40 years of experience, they have never seen a case of pre-eclampsia that was critically life threatening. Basically they would have agreed with your final sentence in your comment @1:16p.m.:
“It isn’t really pre-eclampsia that threatens life. It is eclampsia which includes seizures. Pre-eclampsia just warns you.”
According to the article at the link the woman in question had not yet suffered seizures but her doctors expected her to at any moment. She was also approximately six months pregnant. I realize that at that gestational age the odds of survival are very slim. But still even slim odds are worth taking.
“The mainstays of management of the neurological symptoms of severe preeclamptic and eclamptic patients are the rapid lowering of blood pressure, administration of MgSO4 and delivery of the fetus.”
I went into the Catholic doctrine of double effect as delivering the fetus is, I understand, the only way to cure pre-eclampsia/eclampsia.
Neo, Mike, I’m not a doctor but my now ex-wife had a very difficult pregnancy. Eventually we lost the baby to hydrocephaly. So while not a doctor I learned more about complications and birth defects than I ever wanted to know. My ex never trusted Navy medicine and continued to see a Japanese doctor. The Japanese doctor could tell there was something wrong with the baby and told my wife what questions to ask. The doctor thought the hospital at Naval Station Yokosuka had to better equipped than her small clinic. When the Navy hospital didn’t deal with the problem she finally checked my ex into a Japanese hospital in Yokohama. I don’t know if there ever was anything anybody could do. I do know hydrocephaly can be treated but by then it was too late.
The infuriating thing was the arrogance of the Navy doctors. When I called her doctor he at first demanded to know, “Where did you get your medical degree?” Right here right now, m*****f*****, My second concern, since we were going to lose the baby anyway, was who was going to pay the bill. At first the Naval hospital was going to deny payment since we had gone outside the system, but eventually they agreed as there were problems that they should have discovered but didn’t.
Then came another infuriating blow. The Navy doctor told me that since the hospital at Yokosuka wasn’t equipped to deal with complications during pregnancy they don’t look for them. Mike K, I didn’t mean to insult all doctors. But when that Navy doctor told me that my blood boiled. Neo, I didn’t mean to come across as a Know-it-all, but like my ex I lost nearly all my faith in Navy medicine and Navy doctors and decided that if we ever tried again I needed to know as much about complications during pregnancy as I could. As much as my doctor if possible. And that I needed to question everything the doctor did because I considered it criminal that they simply didn’t look for complications they weren’t prepared to deal with. It’s why I kept harping on the fact that doctors don’t always look out for the patient’s best interest. This doctor told me just that!
OKBecky on January 26, 2019 at 11:38 am, I am extremely happy for you, that your case turned out so well.
I also realize I am coming off as essentially unlikeable. I’m not in person; chalk it up to the deficiencies of the internet I suppose. To illustrate, a few years after the stomach churning events around the death of my son, who now sleeps in the arms of my grandmother, I was back in Yokosuka. Intel support to force protection and all that. My across the hall neighbor at the Bachelor Officer’s Quarters was a nurse at the Naval hospital. We became good friends. One Friday night I hear pounding on the door of my apartment. It’s her and she’s in tears. The hospital had discovered that a Sailor who had come in for a exam 5 TO 8 YEARS earlier had in fact come back positive for some form of cancer.
This was all shortly after 9/11 so there are some fine details I can’t recall. What I can recall is that she was devastated in the face of what she had to do. I offered to hold her hand while she made the call but she figured due to patient privacy laws I shouldn’t be in the room.
I told her after she got off the phone to knock on my door again because I had a bottle of Glenlivet with her name on it.
She had to tell somebody before she made the call. Why me, if I’m essentially unlikeable? I’m sure she had dozens of friends. But she picks on me. Maybe because if she needed a shoulder she knew I had one on offer. I never asked, I just offered. As I waited my blood began to boil. All of it reminded me of why I despised the Naval medical establishment that in my opinion killed my son. Not each and every person in it as I hope my genuine friendship with my neighbor nurse should illustrate. But as a line officer my instinct was to be a leader. If I were in charge of the hospital and I found out that someone had tested positive cancer years earlier I would have sucked it up and made that phone call myself. I definitely would not have let s*** roll down hill to traumatize a Lieutenant Junior Grade nurse.
We split the bottle of scotch. I slept in my bed and she slept on the couch. Nothing hinky happened. I unlike nearly the entire Catholic clergy kept to my vows, and she was just a good girl. If I remember correctly in the morning I made her coffee and eggs and bacon.