Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

[GoodAttention]

You are not a doctor, and you do not seem to understand the kind of pressure they were under--risking their medical licenses and possibly prosecution under criminal law. So it was a career-ending decision from their perspective. From yours, it's just bloviating online in a discussion forum with no consequences other than perhaps a wounded ego at stake. The only incompetence here has been in state legislatures and governor's offices, not to mention the Supreme Court of the US.

Ironically, it was not performing the procedure that will end their career.

Now you're a lawyer in addition to being an expert in medical care???

I can be neither and also intelligent.

Oh, please. Read your own posts in this forum. Do you really believe anyone is fooled?



Right. Them and the entire Republican Party, which has managed to pack the Supreme Court and many state legislatures with anti-abortion extremists, all of whom seem to think that they have some kind of standing and stake in the family planning decisions and health care choices of millions of Americans that they know nothing about.



Amber Thurman is a victim of government overreach. She and her doctors are not at fault for her death. Those who backed these draconian regulations on pregnancies are the incompetent ones for not understanding the threat they posed to the health care and reproductive freedoms of men and women who choose to raise families. So-called "pro-lifers" care nothing for the well-being of families or those who are responsible for administering health care. All they care about is having the power to force others to make the choices that are not their business to make. Once they throw a monkey wrench into the private lives of other people, there is nothing they can do to repair the damage they have caused. Nor do they seem to care all that much.

IF there was no fetal heartbeats AND they considered a procedure to intervene AND waited 20 hours to do so then yes, the medical practitioners and the hospital will be taken to court and lose.

 

[GoodAttention]

Assuming your reasoning is correct, do we also have to conclude that the AG of Georgia is incompetent?
Negligent homicide is a public offence, so it would be the duty of the AG to sue the clinic, not the next of kin of Amber Nicole Thurman.

This should be a coroner’s case, so depending on the outcome and recommendation.

I am certain the case will come before a medical board, and also to a court of law.

Not sure if it is Georgia or North Carolina.

 

[crossfire]

This should be a coroner’s case, so depending on the outcome and recommendation.

I am certain the case will come before a medical board, and also to a court of law.

Not sure if it is Georgia or North Carolina.

It would have to be Georgia.

 

[Heyo]

This should be a coroner’s case, so depending on the outcome and recommendation.

I am certain the case will come before a medical board, and also to a court of law.

It's been two years. The case has been reviewed by a medical board but no reaction from the judiciary.

 

[GoodAttention]

It's been two years. The case has been reviewed by a medical board but no reaction from the judiciary.

This.

This is where the pro-choice attention should be.

Why does the public not have any information regarding the outcome of the review?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not an opinion, it's a judicial term that is well-defined. In Georgia, abortion is murder because fetuses are persons. They are counted in censuses, have all the human rights like free speech, free choice of religion etc. They can get a passport and are able to be recipients of estates.
@Regiomontanus' statement was therefore not an opinion, just an overgeneralization without the qualifier "in Georgia". In most of the world, persons have to be born.

Well, neither position is with objective truth/proof/evidence and for opinion as this - a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge - it is not based on fact or knowledge.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, neither position is with objective truth/proof/evidence and for opinion as this - a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge - it is not based on fact or knowledge.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it a fact.

I think one should also be pragmatic and drop false modesty. We all have sex.
This clip is from the seventies. Woman from Sicily says she had two abortions, but since she has been taking the pill...no abortion any more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think one should also be pragmatic and drop false modesty. We all have sex.
This clip is from the seventies. Woman from Sicily says she had two abortions, but since she has been taking the pill...no abortion any more.

Yeah, irrelevant to the case as per the OP and further the pill is not 100% effective.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, irrelevant to the case as per the OP and further the pill is not 100% effective.

If a man succeeds in impregnating a woman who has been taking the pill for years and regularly, it means that man's a sex machine.
Men like that are very, very rare.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If a man succeeds in impregnating a woman who has been taking the pill for years and regularly, it means that man's a sex machine.
Men like that are very, very rare.

Well, I doubt that is the actual scientific explanation.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, I doubt that is the actual scientific explanation.

Statistics is a science. And the pill is 98% effective, and the 2% is due to the lack of regularity.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, I doubt that is the actual scientific explanation.

And by the way the puritan society can also push many women not to go to the gynaecologist to get the pill out of modesty,
because there's the myth of the sexless life.

 

[Heyo]

Well, neither position is with objective truth/proof/evidence and for opinion as this - a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge - it is not based on fact or knowledge.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it a fact.

Yes, but it isn't just @Regiomontanus' personal opinion. It's the opinion of Georgia citizens. It is a construct, like money or country borders are constructs. They exist as "facts" by our agreement.

 

[Copernicus]

Ironically, it was not performing the procedure that will end their career.

Actually, no. It hasn't and it won't.

I can be neither and also intelligent.

True. You are neither a medical expert nor a legal expert. You can be neither and also not intelligent.

IF there was no fetal heartbeats AND they considered a procedure to intervene AND waited 20 hours to do so then yes, the medical practitioners and the hospital will be taken to court and lose.

As has already been pointed out, there was a medical review and no consequences. Nobody is charging the doctors with a crime or bringing a civil lawsuit. The law apparently shields them. So your argument collapses under its own weight. A 6-year-old child is now without a mother, thanks to the misnamed "right to life" movement in Georgia.

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.​

Tasked with examining pregnancy-related deaths to improve maternal health, the experts, including 10 doctors, deemed hers “preventable” and said the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure had a “large” impact on her fatal outcome.​

​

Their reviews of individual patient cases are not made public. But ProPublica obtained reports that confirm that at least two women have already died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state.​

​

There are almost certainly others.​

​

Committees like the one in Georgia, set up in each state, often operate with a two-year lag behind the cases they examine, meaning that experts are only now beginning to delve into deaths that took place after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion.​

​

Thurman’s case marks the first time an abortion-related death, officially deemed “preventable,” is coming to public light. ProPublica will share the story of the second in the coming days. We are also exploring other deaths that have not yet been reviewed but appear to be connected to abortion bans.​

​

Doctors warned state legislators women would die if medical procedures sometimes needed to save lives became illegal.​

 

[GoodAttention]

Actually, no. It hasn't and it won't.

How would anyone know this?

True. You are neither a medical expert nor a legal expert.

You are making conclusions based on information you don’t have.

You can be neither and also not intelligent.

Exactly how I would describe Ms. Kavitha Surana.

As has already been pointed out, there was a medical review and no consequences. Nobody is charging the doctors with a crime or bringing a civil lawsuit. The law apparently shields them.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Given the report you quote says the death was "preventable", and medical practitioners representing pro-life groups highlight medical negligence, there should be, at the very least, and avenue for a civil lawsuit.

So your argument collapses under its own weight. A 6-year-old child is now without a mother, thanks to the misnamed "right to life" movement in Georgia.

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.​

I’ve already commented on this source specifically in comments #198 and prior, and how is gives the opposite information to other sources.

Tasked with examining pregnancy-related deaths to improve maternal health, the experts, including 10 doctors, deemed hers “preventable” and said the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure had a “large” impact on her fatal outcome.​

This reads exactly how any negligent case would, however it says an “official state committee".

If this is indeed the medical board, and they deemed the death "preventable", then this needs to be qualified further.

A delay in performing a critical procedure can be deemed medical negligence, whether this was clinical, administrative, or both.

Their reviews of individual patient cases are not made public. But ProPublica obtained reports that confirm that at least two women have already died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state.​

​

There are almost certainly others.​

​

Committees like the one in Georgia, set up in each state, often operate with a two-year lag behind the cases they examine, meaning that experts are only now beginning to delve into deaths that took place after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion.​

​

Thurman’s case marks the first time an abortion-related death, officially deemed “preventable,” is coming to public light. ProPublica will share the story of the second in the coming days. We are also exploring other deaths that have not yet been reviewed but appear to be connected to abortion bans.​

​

Doctors warned state legislators women would die if medical procedures sometimes needed to save lives became illegal.​

This is why I said the ProPublica source is garbage, because the author writes extremely vaguely and never quotes from who she is referring to.

The author cherry-picks from a report to then state that "appear" to be connected to abortion bans.

I refer back to comment #265.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually, no. It hasn't and it won't.

How would anyone know this?

Given the time passed and no reporting or reasonable speculation in the press of a legal action, it is a reasonable conclusion. I claim no absolute knowledge of anything, let alone the future.

True. You are neither a medical expert nor a legal expert. You can be neither and also not intelligent.

You are making conclusions based on information you don’t have.

You aren't an expert in logic either, apparently. You claim no special expertise in either medicine or the law, and that has no bearing on whether you are intelligent or not. If any of that is wrong, feel free to set the record straight.

As has already been pointed out, there was a medical review and no consequences. Nobody is charging the doctors with a crime or bringing a civil lawsuit. The law apparently shields them.

How did you reach this conclusion?

My statement explains that. You claim to have read the Propublica article. Details are in the article regarding the official state review, which included 10 doctors. No criminal charges appear to be forthcoming, despite your superficial analysis of the details.

I’ve already commented on this source specifically in comments #198 and prior, and how is gives the opposite information to other sources.

Nothing in #198 contradicts anything I've said. I included the source in my post, because I quoted text from it that revealed Propublica would be reporting on other cases that had yet to be reviewed by the state committee.

This reads exactly how any negligent case would, however it says an “official state committee” NOT medical board.

I said "medical review", not "medical board", whatever you think that is. The state committee included medical experts, and it is beyond doubt that the hospital itself reviewed the entire incident thoroughly. No charges appear to be forthcoming. If you have information to contradict that fact, please give it.

This is why I said the ProPublica source is garbage, because the author writes extremely vaguely and never quotes from who she is referring to.

I go back to comment #265.

You can go back to whatever post you want, but you need to explain its relevance with regard to my post. I don't see any. As for ProPublica, they are a highly respected source of information, your inexpert journalistic opinion notwithstanding.

 

[crossfire]

Statistics is a science. And the pill is 98% effective, and the 2% is due to the lack of regularity.

Per year. Every year you have to re-roll the dice. Here is an app that will roll a 100 sided die for you. Hit the button 30 times (for 30 years of a woman's fertility.) If you roll a 1 or a 2 the pill fails and you get pregnant. You will probably get a roll of either 1 or 2 if you roll the dice 30 times. Try it and see.

Roll A Die

Roll a Die with Start Stop

rolladie.net

 

[GoodAttention]

Given the time passed and no reporting or reasonable speculation in the press of a legal action, it is a reasonable conclusion. I claim no absolute knowledge of anything, let alone the future.


You aren't an expert in logic either, apparently. You claim no special expertise in either medicine or the law, and that has no bearing on whether you are intelligent or not. If any of that is wrong, feel free to set the record straight.



My statement explains that. You claim to have read the Propublica article. Details are in the article regarding the official state review, which included 10 doctors. No criminal charges appear to be forthcoming, despite your superficial analysis of the details.



Nothing in #198 contradicts anything I've said. I included the source in my post, because I quoted text from it that revealed Propublica would be reporting on other cases that had yet to be reviewed by the state committee.



I said "medical review", not "medical board", whatever you think that is. The state committee included medical experts, and it is beyond doubt that the hospital itself reviewed the entire incident thoroughly. No charges appear to be forthcoming. If you have information to contradict that fact, please give it.



You can go back to whatever post you want, but you need to explain its relevance with regard to my post. I don't see any. As for ProPublica, they are a highly respected source of information, your inexpert journalistic opinion notwithstanding.

Presenting my pertinent points

The "preventable" is a quote from the ProPublica source. The same source also says the following;

"...the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure had a “large” impact on her fatal outcome".

Adding another source, which quotes a medical practitioner directly, stating;

“Amber Thurman’s tragic death, recently covered by multiple news organizations, was caused by side effects of legal abortion drugs and medical negligence, not pro-life laws,” - Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG).

I infer from Dr Francis that she agrees this death could have been prevented, as is any case when medical negligence is involved.

Therefore:

If this is indeed the medical board/review/ (as per ProPublica) , and they deemed the death "preventable", then this needs to be qualified further. A delay in performing a critical procedure can be deemed medical negligence, whether this was clinical, administrative, or both.

Both sources highlight this, and therefore the next questions should be, as @Heyo also asked,

(1) If the AG is responsible for pursuing the matter, are they obliged to make a comment on this?
(2) If this can only be pursued as a civil case, who is able to do so?

The MOST IMPORTANT question to ask for pro-choice side is if neither happens, and the reasons why.

 

[Copernicus]

Presenting my pertinent points

The "preventable" is a quote from the ProPublica source. The same source also says the following;

"...the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure had a “large” impact on her fatal outcome".

Adding another source, which quotes a medical practitioner directly, stating;

“Amber Thurman’s tragic death, recently covered by multiple news organizations, was caused by side effects of legal abortion drugs and medical negligence, not pro-life laws,” - Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG).

I infer from Dr Francis that she agrees this death could have been prevented, as is any case when medical negligence is involved.

Therefore:

If this is indeed the medical board/review/ (as per ProPublica) , and they deemed the death "preventable", then this needs to be qualified further. A delay in performing a critical procedure can be deemed medical negligence, whether this was clinical, administrative, or both.

Both sources highlight this, and therefore the next questions should be, as @Heyo also asked,

(1) If the AG is responsible for pursuing the matter, are they obliged to make a comment on this?
(2) If this can only be pursued as a civil case, who is able to do so?

The MOST IMPORTANT question to ask for pro-choice side is if neither happens, and the reasons why.

I disagree completely. This is a question for everyone, not just the pro-choice side. What caused the negligence? Have you asked yourself that? Was it incompetence? Did the doctors not know how to treat her? Would it have happened before the draconian anti-abortion law was imposed on Georgian women after Dobbs? This was someone who had been forced to flee the state for medical treatment. Upon returning, her condition involved a botched treatment that left some vestige of her pregnancy still in her womb. What the doctors did was not heroic. It was what most people would have done--consider the consequence of giving pregnancy-related medical treatment to a woman. The safest thing for them to do from their perspective was delay treatment until they understood whether it was legally permissible. They misjudged and waited too long. But for the law, the woman would never have left the state, would have been alive today, and her 6 year old child would still have a mother. This is the result of a movement that brands itself "right to life". It is really "risk to life".

 

[Pogo]

Presenting my pertinent points

The "preventable" is a quote from the ProPublica source. The same source also says the following;

"...the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure had a “large” impact on her fatal outcome".

Adding another source, which quotes a medical practitioner directly, stating;

“Amber Thurman’s tragic death, recently covered by multiple news organizations, was caused by side effects of legal abortion drugs and medical negligence, not pro-life laws,” - Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG).

I infer from Dr Francis that she agrees this death could have been prevented, as is any case when medical negligence is involved.

Therefore:

If this is indeed the medical board/review/ (as per ProPublica) , and they deemed the death "preventable", then this needs to be qualified further. A delay in performing a critical procedure can be deemed medical negligence, whether this was clinical, administrative, or both.

Both sources highlight this, and therefore the next questions should be, as @Heyo also asked,

(1) If the AG is responsible for pursuing the matter, are they obliged to make a comment on this?
(2) If this can only be pursued as a civil case, who is able to do so?

The MOST IMPORTANT question to ask for pro-choice side is if neither happens, and the reasons why.

We know why and it was predicted before these new laws were passed.
Procedures that were good medicine and automatic in the past were now potentially illegal and in our litigious society this left the doctors in an untenable position, do what they knew was the right thing and risk being charged with a crime or wait till there was a desperation situation that protected the hospital and their license. The death was preventable and if not for the ambiguities that resulted from sloppy laws and overzealous politicians it would have been prevented. Had this situation occurred under the prior laws it might well have been negligence on the part of the provider, in this case the negligence is on the part of the lawmakers. Their defence, they were pro-life.