The article highlights a terrifying gap between medical ethics and legal compliance. I wonder at what point the liability of not treating someone becomes smaller than the liability of following the rules to a fault. It seems like we've reached a breaking point where the legal scaffolding of the medical industry is now actively working against the actual practice of medicine. How do we even begin to untangle that without a total overhaul of Florida’s healthcare statutes?
To an extent, we already see that in Texas and other states that have banned abortion. Pregnant women are being denied care because the hospital does not want to be liable if something goes wrong or if an issue requires an emergency abortion. This has only been made worse under the Trump administration.
Women are literally dying because hospitals refuse to treat them because they're pregnant. It's horrifying.
This article is about the lengths to which the state of Florida is going to prioritise the life of the foetus over the life of the mother. In this case, the mother had a risky pregnancy, but opted to try for a vaginal delivery rather than a c-section because of the risks of a c-section. Instead, she found herself having to explain herself to a judge with her ability to make decisions about her own body and her family's future in jeopardy. What this article highlights more than anything is how horrifying being pregnant in the US can be. A woman's bodily autonomy means nothing in some states, with everything being sacrificed in the name of the foetus.
The reporter didn't include any information from the court records, specifically what information the hospital supplied when they asked for the hearing.
Medical standards and liability issues force hospitals to make these kinds of decisions.
Hospitals refused to talk about either case, even though the patients signed waivers. In one case the woman was in labor for over 24 hours and the viral signs of the fetus were dropping.
While a woman has the right to attempt to give birth as she wishes, sometimes those wishes do match up with what is medically safe or possible.
There are no medical standards that force legally competent people into treatment against their will.
Think of psych holds which require the patient to be an immediate danger to themselves or others to hold them.
I do agree it was likely for liability reasons, since republicans have legislated regulations against medical advice that force doctors to provide either substandard or unnecessary care.
MidnightMatchaGal | a day ago
The article highlights a terrifying gap between medical ethics and legal compliance. I wonder at what point the liability of not treating someone becomes smaller than the liability of following the rules to a fault. It seems like we've reached a breaking point where the legal scaffolding of the medical industry is now actively working against the actual practice of medicine. How do we even begin to untangle that without a total overhaul of Florida’s healthcare statutes?
[OP] Quouar | a day ago
To an extent, we already see that in Texas and other states that have banned abortion. Pregnant women are being denied care because the hospital does not want to be liable if something goes wrong or if an issue requires an emergency abortion. This has only been made worse under the Trump administration.
Women are literally dying because hospitals refuse to treat them because they're pregnant. It's horrifying.
More-Ice-1929 | a day ago
Unfortunately, I'm sure that's the goal. Right wing states restrict healthcare because they want these people to be in pain and die.
[OP] Quouar | a day ago
This article is about the lengths to which the state of Florida is going to prioritise the life of the foetus over the life of the mother. In this case, the mother had a risky pregnancy, but opted to try for a vaginal delivery rather than a c-section because of the risks of a c-section. Instead, she found herself having to explain herself to a judge with her ability to make decisions about her own body and her family's future in jeopardy. What this article highlights more than anything is how horrifying being pregnant in the US can be. A woman's bodily autonomy means nothing in some states, with everything being sacrificed in the name of the foetus.
Baumbauer1 | 22 hours ago
Damn, what a horrific read. It seems pretty clear that Republicans don't think women should have legal autonomy
vineyardmike | 14 hours ago
That's why they want to make it harder for women to vote.
Both-Engineering-692 | a day ago
What is wrong with these people?
dubbleplusgood | 17 hours ago
Republicans. Literally, the singular specific word that explains it all.
Opinionsare | 23 hours ago
The reporter didn't include any information from the court records, specifically what information the hospital supplied when they asked for the hearing.
Medical standards and liability issues force hospitals to make these kinds of decisions.
dayburner | an hour ago
Hospitals refused to talk about either case, even though the patients signed waivers. In one case the woman was in labor for over 24 hours and the viral signs of the fetus were dropping.
While a woman has the right to attempt to give birth as she wishes, sometimes those wishes do match up with what is medically safe or possible.
DeviantDork | 16 hours ago
There are no medical standards that force legally competent people into treatment against their will.
Think of psych holds which require the patient to be an immediate danger to themselves or others to hold them.
I do agree it was likely for liability reasons, since republicans have legislated regulations against medical advice that force doctors to provide either substandard or unnecessary care.