Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

[GoodAttention]

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".

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.

The point of all my comments is, first and foremost, justice for Amber Thurman. I hope that we can all agree that this is the priority, whether we are pro-life or pro-choice.

Do I agree that she would be alive today if this was pre Roe vs. Wade? Of course I do.

Do I agree that the change in the law has had an affect, whether directly or indirectly, on Ms Thurmans death? Yes.

Do I believe that accountibility for clinical outcomes is upon the medical practitioners that treated her? Yes, regardless of what the law is.

Do I believe this is fair on the medical practitioners? IDGAF about what is fair for them or not, they have a responsibility full stop. IF this ultimately was due to administrative reasons, that is the clinical decision was to perform the procedure but the hospital removed access for them to do so, then the negligence is upon the hospital.


Ultimately, justice must be sought, and this can only be done in two ways (that I am aware of), which I refer to again.

(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?

This is the hole in the pro-life argument, because IF their laws DO NOT provide justice, it is their argument that falls like a house of cards.

 

[Pogo]

Do I believe that accountibility for clinical outcomes is upon the medical practitioners that treated her? Yes, regardless of what the law is.

That is nice, but it is denying the reality in this case, If the decisions were entirely up to the medical practitioners, you would have a point. That is exactly the problem, it was not entirely the practitioner's decision and to absolve the persons responsible for the delay in treatment is denying accountability. There is no legal recourse in this case probably, but doesn't absolve the confusion that was legislated.

 

[GoodAttention]

That is nice, but it is denying the reality in this case, If the decisions were entirely up to the medical practitioners, you would have a point. That is exactly the problem, it was not entirely the practitioner's decision and to absolve the persons responsible for the delay in treatment is denying accountability.

As per my comment #281 "IF this ultimately was due to administrative reasons, that is the clinical decision was to perform the procedure but the hospital removed access for them to do so, then the negligence is upon the hospital".

I would count any "legal advice or direction" to be administrative.

There is no legal recourse in this case probably, but doesn't absolve the confusion that was legislated.

Question for you.

Under the current legislation -

(a) Amber Thurman is not entitled to justice in this circumstance because she committed "suicide by hospital"
(b) Amber Thurman is entitled to justice, and the State of Georgia will provide it
(c) Amber Thurman is entitled to justice, but not by the hands of the AG
(d) None of the above

 

[McBell]

Under the current legislation -

(a) Amber Thurman is not entitled to justice in this circumstance because she committed "suicide by hospital"
(b) Amber Thurman is entitled to justice, and the State of Georgia will provide it
(c) Amber Thurman is entitled to justice, but not by the hands of the AG
(d) None of the above

what would "justice" look like?

 

[Copernicus]

Question for you.

Under the current legislation -

(a) Amber Thurman is not entitled to justice in this circumstance because she committed "suicide by hospital"
(b) Amber Thurman is entitled to justice, and the State of Georgia will provide it
(c) Amber Thurman is entitled to justice, but not by the hands of the AG
(d) None of the above

My answer: (d) None of the above.

Your option (a) is a bizarre insinuation that she somehow wanted to die, so I don't know why you even included it. Maybe that would be an option for victim blamers. There can be no justice for Amber Thurman and her family. She is dead. Her child has been deprived of a mother. Her family has been deprived of her presence in their lives. It is unlikely that a prosecutor would bring a criminal case against the hospital or the doctors, because it isn't clear that they committed any crime. A civil suit might have a chance to give Thurman's survivors some kind of financial compensation, but it would take a long time and possibly go nowhere. It would not result in justice for Amber Thurman.

 

[Shaul]

Or not. Here is a different take on this, Amber Thurman Died Because Of Amber Thurman

I'm not saying which account is right. But it is good to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion.

 

[GoodAttention]

My answer: (d) None of the above.

Your option (a) is a bizarre insinuation that she somehow wanted to die, so I don't know why you even included it. Maybe that would be an option for victim blamers. There can be no justice for Amber Thurman and her family. She is dead. Her child has been deprived of a mother. Her family has been deprived of her presence in their lives. It is unlikely that a prosecutor would bring a criminal case against the hospital or the doctors, because it isn't clear that they committed any crime. A civil suit might have a chance to give Thurman's survivors some kind of financial compensation, but it would take a long time and possibly go nowhere. It would not result in justice for Amber Thurman.

I didn't ask you the question, but since you answered let us hope that you are wrong.

 

[GoodAttention]

what would "justice" look like?

Great question, but one I don't know the answer to.

At this point I shrug my shoulders and shake my head, but at the same time I know that, was she my wife/sister/daughter, I would be ****** someone's **** in (metaphorically speaking of course).

 

[Copernicus]

Or not. Here is a different take on this, Amber Thurman Died Because Of Amber Thurman

I'm not saying which account is right. But it is good to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion.

That article is nothing more than victim-blaming by an antiabortion blogger. Thurman was a medical assistant who likely understood the risks, but she had no choice after missing her appointment in the out-of-state hospital. The sepsis that killed her was a rare but easily treatable condition after taking mifepristone. Unfortunately, the hospital in Georgia was unsure about what to do because of the state law criminalizing abortions. She was not to blame for anything that happened to her. It certainly had nothing to do with MSNBC, liberals, Democrats, or pro-choicers, as your blogger claimed. The state of Georgia was at fault here.

 

[Shaul]

That article is nothing more than victim-blaming by an antiabortion blogger. Thurman was a medical assistant who likely understood the risks, but she had no choice after missing her appointment in the out-of-state hospital. The sepsis that killed her was a rare but easily treatable condition after taking mifepristone. Unfortunately, the hospital in Georgia was unsure about what to do because of the state law criminalizing abortions. She was not to blame for anything that happened to her. It certainly had nothing to do with MSNBC, liberals, Democrats, or pro-choicers, as your blogger claimed. The state of Georgia was at fault here.

If you say so. As a medical assistant she should have known the possible side effects and perhaps stayed in North Carolina awhile to be prudent. The bottom line is there is more than one side to this story. You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts your made up mind.

 

[Copernicus]

If you say so. As a medical assistant she should have known the possible side effects and perhaps stayed in North Carolina awhile to be prudent. The bottom line is there is more than one side to this story. You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts your made up mind.

No, I'm here to read your rebuttals to my posts, but yours is pure speculation. I don't even know why she wanted to have an abortion, but she felt it so important that she left her state rather than carry the pregnancy to term. I also don't know why she didn't stay longer in North Carolina, or why she couldn't. To me, these kinds of nitpicks are beside the point. The point is that she should have been able to have that abortion in Georgia, no matter what you or I might think about her opinions and judgement. It was never a decision that we faced, and it was never really any of our business at all. It was her business. Between her and her medical advisers and family. That is exactly what Roe v Wade was about--the right of a person to privacy and control over a very important, personal, intimate decision that affected her life. Not yours or mine. Maybe she made mistakes, but we don't have any right to make that difficult decision for her.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Or not. Here is a different take on this, Amber Thurman Died Because Of Amber Thurman

I'm not saying which account is right. But it is good to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion.

Ahh, victim blaming. Nice.

 

[Shaul]

Ahh, victim blaming. Nice.

Really? Or are the pro-abortion crowd victim exploiting? Aren't the pro-abortion crowd exploiting her senseless, needless death?

 

[Shaul]

No, I'm here to read your rebuttals to my posts, but yours is pure speculation. I don't even know why she wanted to have an abortion, but she felt it so important that she left her state rather than carry the pregnancy to term. I also don't know why she didn't stay longer in North Carolina, or why she couldn't. To me, these kinds of nitpicks are beside the point. The point is that she should have been able to have that abortion in Georgia, no matter what you or I might think about her opinions and judgement. It was never a decision that we faced, and it was never really any of our business at all. It was her business. Between her and her medical advisers and family. That is exactly what Roe v Wade was about--the right of a person to privacy and control over a very important, personal, intimate decision that affected her life. Not yours or mine. Maybe she made mistakes, but we don't have any right to make that difficult decision for her.

I didn't make any rebuttal, actually. I wrote "I'm not saying which account is right. But it is good to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion." That is the opposite of speculation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really? Or are the pro-abortion crowd victim exploiting? Aren't the pro-abortion crowd exploiting her senseless, needless death?

No. The pro-choice crowd is drawing attention to it because this is exactly what we warned would happen when Roe v. Wade protections were removed.
And here we are. And it's infuriating.

 

[Shaul]

No. The pro-choice crowd is drawing attention to it because this is exactly what we warned would happen when Roe v. Wade protections were removed.
And here we are. And it's infuriating.

Yet they don't "draw attention" to the other women who died after botched abortions that occurred while Roe v. Wade was still in place. The reason is obvious. So, again, pro-abortion advocates are exploiting the tragic death of Ms. Thurman.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't make any rebuttal, actually. I wrote "I'm not saying which account is right. But it is good to get as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion." That is the opposite of speculation.

Do you even read your own posts? You speculated that a better choice for her would have been to stay in North Carolina longer, not knowing anything about why she did what she did. You framed your response to me as a rebuttal ("contradiction") when you said "You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts your made up mind." How is that not an attempted rebuttal? None of your speculation is "information". It is speculation that completely misses the point of what this discussion is about: why that woman ended up dead instead of alive. One piece of information we do have is that proper medical treatment in Georgia would have left her alive. The Georgia doctors knew what to do, but she had to travel out of state to get that treatment. Conditions of travel made her miss her appointment, resulting in an alternative chemical-induced abortion that led to further complications that doctors back in Georgia balked at doing in a timely fashion. Because of concerns over the Republican law banning medical treatments in connection with abortion.

 

[Shaul]

Do you even read your own posts? You speculated that a better choice for her would have been to stay in North Carolina longer, not knowing anything about why she did what she did. You framed your response to me as a rebuttal ("contradiction") when you said "You just don't want to hear anything that contradicts your made up mind." How is that not an attempted rebuttal? None of your speculation is "information". It is speculation that completely misses the point of what this discussion is about: why that woman ended up dead instead of alive. One piece of information we do have is that proper medical treatment in Georgia would have left her alive.

No, I never made any speculations. Pointing out that you aren't open to contrary opinions or evidence isn't speculation. It is just an observation.

No, it isn't true that "One piece of information we do have is that proper medical treatment in Georgia would have left her alive." This assumes things not in evidence and is based on speculation. What we do know is that if Ms. Thurman did not go out of state and by her own volition take abortion inducing drugs, then she would not have had the sepsis. That is the proximate cause for her death. Not any action by Georgia doctors.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yet they don't "draw attention" to the other women who died after botched abortions that occurred while Roe v. Wade was still in place. The reason is obvious. So, again, pro-abortion advocates are exploiting the tragic death of Ms. Thurman.

You don't seem to realize that you've just argued in favour of Roe v. Wade protections.

Woman die from unsafe abortions. This is already known. This is why Roe v. Wade protections needed to remain in place.
If you're upset about "botched abortions that occurred while Roe v. Wade was still in place" then you should be as upset that Roe v. Wade protections have been removed as I am, because guess what? More unsafe abortions are going to be occurring more and more as time goes on.
That's what happens when you take safe and medically sound choices away from people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I never made any speculations. Pointing out that you aren't open to contrary opinions or evidence isn't speculation. It is just an observation.

No, it isn't true that "One piece of information we do have is that proper medical treatment in Georgia would have left her alive." This assumes things not in evidence and is based on speculation. What we do know is that if Ms. Thurman did not go out of state and by her own volition take abortion inducing drugs, then she would not have had the sepsis. That is the proximate cause for her death. Not any action by Georgia doctors.

If her bodily autonomy hadn't been robbed from her in the first place, then she would have been free to make all of these choices and still receive adequate medical care to save her life. Then her son would still have his mother.

Too much to ask these days in the good ol' US of A, I know. Gotta punish the sluts ya know.