American Thinker Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition

[Jolly]

Enjoy!

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/02/politicization_of_medicine_is_merely_a_symptom_of_our_cultures_disease.html

[Axtremus]

This phrase in the article: ”… emergency room doctors to perform elective abortions …”

Why would emergency room do any elective surgery in the first place? Is this really a thing? “Emergency” and “elective” are two incompatible concepts, no?

[George K]

@Axtremus said in American Think Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition:

This phrase in the article: ”… emergency room doctors to perform elective abortions …”

I really don't understand what this means either.

ER docs, at least in most larger places, don't do abortions. They aren't trained. It can be done with some (serious) sedation, and if, IF, you have the right tools and training.

God help you if you perf a uterus, though. Who you gonna call?

[Jolly]

@Axtremus said in American Think Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition:

This phrase in the article: ”… emergency room doctors to perform elective abortions …”

Why would emergency room do any elective surgery in the first place? Is this really a thing? “Emergency” and “elective” are two incompatible concepts, no?

There is a link within the essay, that takes you to the pertinent legal docs...

https://adflegal.org/case/state-texas-v-becerra?utm_source=americanthinker&utm_medium=oped

It looks at the Biden Admin's use of EMTALA to override Dobbs in the case of patient presenting to the ED with a botched abortion.

Does a physician have the Constitutional right to not carry out the abortion to conclusion, if it is against his beliefs? Especially if the fetus is viable?

[Axtremus]

1. OK, the court case does not seem to say anything about ER physician doing "elective abortion" in the ER, so it's probably just the American Thinker writer putting in the "elective" qualifier without thinking it through.

2. If the question is whether to follow federal law or state law when the two are in conflict, the general rule is federal law trumps state law. American Civics 101 stuff, right?

@Jolly said in American Think Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition:

Does a physician have the Constitutional right to not carry out the abortion to conclusion, if it is against his beliefs? Especially if the fetus is viable?

A person's Constitutional right as a citizen does not wholly automatically carry over to his capacity as an employee or a licensed professional. If you wish not to perform a function likely required by a job, be it due to your religious beliefs or otherwise, don't take the job to begin with.

The First Amendment protects the individual's right to practice his religion on his own. It does not give an employee or a licensed professional the right to redefine his job function. You do not sign up as a soldier then refuse to shoot at the enemy on the battle field just because your region says "thou shalt not kill." You do not sign up to wait at a restaurant then refuse to serve beef when a customer orders a burger just because your religion says cows are sacred. You similarly do not sign up to be a physician who does ER rotation then refuse to perform abortion in ER just because your religion forbids abortion.

An ER staff as an individual has the luxury of choosing his religious beliefs and the luxury of choosing his profession and place of employment. A patient rushed to the ER usually does not have the luxury of picking individual service providers. The patient will not know ahead of time who will be working in which ER at what time. The patient will not have the time or the resources to research which individual ER staff has what religious beliefs. So, yeah, the well-being of the ER patients should trump the religious beliefs of the individual ER staffs. I expect ER physicians to do what is best for the patients, not necessarily what is best for the physician's religious beliefs.

[Jolly]

Lad, in the example I gave you, the only presentation it talks about is a botched abortion. That's an elective procedure gone bad. Underline elective.

Therefore, when it hits the ED doors, the physician is presented with an elective procedure gone sideways.

If there is any chance he can save that child (remember, science is constantly pushing the viability window downward), should he be forced by Biden's interpretation of EMTALA to abort a child he might can save?

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in American Think Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition:

… in the example I gave you, the only presentation it talks about is a botched abortion. That's an elective procedure gone bad. Underline elective.
Therefore, when it hits the ED doors, the physician is presented with an elective procedure gone sideways.

An “election procedure gone bad” being presented to the ER is not the same as ER physicians performing “elective procedure” in the ER.

If there is any chance he can save that child (remember, science is constantly pushing the viability window downward), should he be forced by Biden's interpretation of EMTALA to abort a child he might can save?

The premise of your question is misleading in that it sidesteps the well-being of the mother (the gestating host) in the ER. The Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA does not “force” the abortion of a child, it says only that when only one of either the mother or the pregnancy can be saved in a state with anti-abortion law without exception for “life of the mother,” that such state law should take a backseat to federal law.

So you have three cases to consider:

1. (Case 1) Both the mother and the pregnancy can be saved. The Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA does not force an abortion in this case. (I doubt there is any state law that would “force” an ER physician to abort the pregnancy in this case, so no conflict with state law would come into play. But if you are aware of any state law that would “force” an abortion in this situation, please feel free to cite it here and we can discuss.)

2. Only one can be saved, a situation where if the pregnancy is not aborted the mother will die. This splits into two sub-cases: (Case 2A) the state’s anti-abortion law allows an exception for “the life of the mother,” in this case the ER can perform abortion that is necessary to save the mother’s life without running afoul of state law; (Case 2B) the state’s anti-abortion law has no exception for “the life of the mother,” in this case the ER faces the from choice of “save the mother’s life” or “run afoul of state law,” this (Case 2B) is the only case where the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA with regards to abortion the in the ER says federal law preempts state law.

[Jolly]

I beg to differ.

An elective procedure gone bad in this case, is an abortion. An abortion that develops complications that can not be handled by the people present.

This patient is then dumped on an ED, which has to see this patient because of EMTALA. The Biden Administration's position is that the ED doc must bring the elective procedure to conclusion - i.e. killing a possibly viable baby.

For argument's sake, let us postulate that the ED doc is a devout Christian and does not believe in elective abortion.

Can you override his religious liberty, forcing him to terminate a baby (or fetus if it makes you comfortable) using EMTALA?

[George K]

@Jolly an abortion that goes bad might have a significant likelihood of presenting a danger to the life of the mother.

What can go wrong during an abortion?

Well, a perfed uterus, for one thing. Incomplete delivery of "products of conception" causing bleeding, for another. These are life-threatening conditions. Neither of which can/should be handled in an ER.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in American Think Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition:

@Jolly an abortion that goes bad might have a significant likelihood of presenting a danger to the life of the mother.

What can go wrong during an abortion?

Well, a perfed uterus, for one thing. Incomplete delivery of "products of conception" causing bleeding, for another. These are life-threatening conditions. Neither of which can/should be handled in an ER.

Should and has to be are two different things. Biden is saying that taking care of a perforated uterus is fine. Non-viable POC wouldn't be a problem,either.

Biut what if the "POC" is viable? At whatever weeks we can currently consider viable?

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in American Thinker Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition:

For argument's sake, let us postulate that the ED doc is a devout Christian and does not believe in elective abortion.

Can you override his religious liberty, forcing him to terminate a baby (or fetus if it makes you comfortable) using EMTALA?

While on a job with regards to performing a job function, the worker's religious liberty should definitely take a back seat to performing the job function. The reasons and analogies/example are already given in my second reply in this thread.

[Axtremus]

EMTALA does not apply as this does not concern an "emergency," but here is a case where it would have been more compassionate for all to have the state law overridden:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/18/florida-abortion-law-couple-birth

[Jolly]

@Axtremus said in American Thinker Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition:

@Jolly said in American Thinker Du Jour - Health Ethics Edition:

For argument's sake, let us postulate that the ED doc is a devout Christian and does not believe in elective abortion.

Can you override his religious liberty, forcing him to terminate a baby (or fetus if it makes you comfortable) using EMTALA?

While on a job with regards to performing a job function, the worker's religious liberty should definitely take a back seat to performing the job function. The reasons and analogies/example are already given in my second reply in this thread.

Job functions are not enumerated in the Constitution.