A nurse, Vera Wood, did not call a resuscitation team or an infant transport team to take the shivering, whimpering, gasping infant to Children's hospital. Instead, according to court records, "She took the baby into the service room where dead fetuses are stored, and left it there [in a bedpan] for 40 minutes."
Thomas Berger, an attorney representing the child and her adoptive family noted, "We could prove that Vera Wood and other nurses did nothing to suction the baby or to provide warmth or oxygen for the child. Our case was that the baby suffered severe [trauma] as a result of these acts or omissions by VGH and its employees, resulting in brain damage in the form of mental retardation and cerebral palsy." After 40 minutes, nurse Wood called the night nursing supervisor, Joyce Hatherall, who cleared the baby's air passages, provided warmth and called for oxygen.
Mr. Berger also said, "We also had evidence that Dr. Jaroudi, called up to the ward, realized the baby had been delivered by Nadine Bourne, and realized it was viable, but nevertheless told the nurses not to resuscitate the baby ('...let it go')." Which, while not exactly rushing to the child's aid, was an improvement over what William Waddill did while nurses were attempting to resuscitate Baby W. in a California hospital. Jaroudi's attempt to complete the abortion was limited to an order to let the baby die, an order Joyce Hatherall ignored.
But even after Hatherall's intervention, the baby was placed on a metal counter, where she likely suffered further hypothermia. And when Jaroudi finally contacted the transport team for Children's Hospital, he gave them insufficient information, causing an additional half-hour delay in providing care to the baby.
That neglected baby, left to die, has since been adopted. And she has a name: Ximena Renearts. But thanks to the attempts on her life both before and after her birth, she suffered permanent brain damage. She is quadriplegic and has the mental capacity of a three-year-old.BC police made two abortive (how appropriate!) investigations of the case, with spokesman Sergeant Bob Cooper calling the case "bullshit", comparing it to cases where children die when being delivered by midwives. Which leaves me wondering if BC midwives routinely leave premature infants in metal bedpans in the closet for over half an hour at a time before somebody else comes along and provides care over the midwives' objections.
Part of the reason for the callous attitude of the police may be that the spokesman for the BC Minister of Health's Office, Michelle Stewart, is dismissive of the issue of infants born live during abortions, commenting, "As you know, this Ministry is very much in favor of giving women choices about their reproductive health." British Columbia's Chief Coroner Larry Campbell included a letter in a report on such live births, and dismissed them as to be expected in abortion and therefore outside the purview of BC coroners, who only get involved if a death is "unexpected". In other words, at least in British Columbia, abortion is 100% about achieving the death of the infant, even if the infant is born alive. Which leaves me to wonder if a perpetrator who shot Ximena dead tomorrow would face charges at all. Is she still, legally, only an aborted fetus?
The family filed suit against the hospital, the doctor, and the nurse, settling out of court for over $8 million, which will be used to build an accessible house for Ximena and to provide her with the care she will need for the rest of her life.
The hospital never conducted an internal review of how a live-born infant was treated like a pathology specimen on their premises, in violation of the law forbidding anyone to abandon or expose a child under the age of ten "so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured." Under Canadian law, having been born alive, Ximenia was a living human being entitled to full protection under the law. Prolife activists hold that charges of attempted murder might be more appropriate, since nurse Wood's intent in putting the child in the bedpan aside in a room for dead fetuses was to allow the baby to die and be sent to the pathology lab with the other results of recent abortions.
Ximena's adoptive mother, Margaret, says, "How can you ever bring justice when all the damage is done? I guess my big hope that what happened to Ximena won't be in vain. It could be you in the hospital and what if they feel that you're not worthy of life. We have to stop somewhere."
And it must be a sad overtone to every birthday Ximena's family celebrates, to realize that they're also celebrating the day she was stuck in a bedpan and left to die.
31 comments:
Quick nit-picky but important typo correction--paragraph 5 reads: "But even after Hatherall's intervention, the baby was placed on a metal counter, where she likely suffered further hyperthermia" but that last should be hypothermia.
Thank you for all you do to raise awareness about the dangers of abortion!
Thought I'd fixed that! Must have clicked the wrong spot on Spell Check. Thanx!
Aristotle writes in his Metaphysics, that all men by nature desire to know. Vision is the sense that we love the most because it makes us know more. This is a great tool for until people see abortion, the status quo won't change.
What a horrendous experience to go through.
People need to be aware of this abuse.
Acolyte:
Aristotle, Aristotle
Was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene DesCartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am!"
Newsflash: the status quo won't change EVEN IF the American people see abortion for what it is. (That is, it will change--it'll get more pro-choice.) Partly, but not only, because if they did see what it is they would see that it is not nearly as dreadful as it has been portrayed to be. Not entirely undreadful, but much less so than is portrayed. RTLs wave pictures of third-trimester abortus in front of clinics that only do abortions up to fifteen weeks.
Also, wouldn't "seeing abortion" include seeing what happens in societies which ban abortion and seriously enforce the bans? In the mid 1990s when South Africa liberalized their abortion laws they documented an abrupt ninety-five percent drop in hospital admissions for abortion complications. No one has a clue what's going on in the Philippines where they jail the abortion doc AND the patients, and send pregnant cops out as spies posing as patients. But my understanding is anyone can get misoprostol on the street, which means people are probably using it wrong some of the time--too late in pregnancy or using it and not following up if it fails. This can create severe birth defects like thalidomide. Knowing this is part of "seeing abortion" too.
Forgot to say, everyone seems to agree that the abortion rate per capita in the Philippines is about the same as in the USA or more likely higher. Pro-choice groups and RTL groups like Physicians for Life, National groups and International.
SoMG, explain to us how learning about what was done to Ximena should make all of us become enlightened as to how abortion is a good and thing that we should become more supportive of?
OK, I read it. It sounds like PP screwed up, and then the ER doc screwed up too.
I would say that this story should not make you more nor less supportive of abortion rights in general than before you read it. It's a rare conjunction of two shocking errors. Three if you count the erroneous reporting by the patient, but that's a little less shocking than a doc missing a thirty-week pregnancy in 1985!
What should we do with the born-alive baby? Here's my prescription: keep it alive as long as possible, without regard to cost, and then when it dies send the bill to the Vatican. Tell them if they don't pay up you'll feed the next born-alive baby to a snake. On Church property.
OK, I'm changing my mind. The story should make you MORE supportive of abortion rights, because if abortion were illegal this sort of thing would be much more frequent. See Misoprostol, incorrect use of, in my earlier comment.
In Ximena's case, she had two exams so it's shocking that her continuing late pregnancy was undetected.
If she had had no exams because afraid to reveal pregnancy to docs, it wouldn't be shocking.
Maybe I'm being too hard on the Church. OK here's how we should do it: we should include on the IRS forms the question: "Which is closest to your position on abortion, right-to-life, prochoice, or neither?" Those who check RTL have to pay extra. The money goes to pay for care for babies born alive during failed abortions. If you are convicted of lying about it, your punishment is you get forced to eat nothing but dead human aborted babies for the rest of your life. Roasted, stewed, or fried.
SoMG, let me ask you something; IS there ANYTHING that could happen, even hypothetically, that could lead you to think that maybe legalizing abortion isn't the best idea ever?
GG, To answer your question, I'm not sure, but if it were shown (by real scientists) that abortion, even when properly performed, were significantly more dangerous than the childbirth it prevents, that would be a start toward changing my mind. Only a start, because I believe people are entitled to do things that are bad for them if they wish, but that would be step one.
Now I ask you one: is there anything that could happen, even hypothetically, that could lead you to think that maybe banning human slavery isn't the best idea ever?
SoMG,
Do you usually only consider yourself when making decisions or do you sometimes consider others as well?
SecH, that varies from decision to decision. Why do you ask?
It was just your comment about if abortion was more dangerous than child birth you would consider changing your support for abortion.
Abortion is more dangerous because the child almost always dies. When considering your response to the question GG asked you it seemed to me that you only considered yourself and not the unborn child.
I see. Yes, I make health decisions pretty much selfishly. With exceptions. For instance even if I needed a transplant I wouldn't want one taken by force from an unwilling donor, so I guess I'm unselfish in that particular regard. But yes, when I hire a doc I want him/her generally to make decisions based on what's best for me, not what's best for someone else.
You wrote: "Abortion is more dangerous because the child almost always dies."
Yuk yuk yuk--aren't you just cute as a button! Yes, you're absolutely right! Similarly, keeping both your kidneys is more dangerous than donating one. Yes it is, when you include the danger facing the patient who needs the transplant!
Thought for the day: Escaping from a pack of starving wolves is more dangerous than submitting to them. For the wolves.
GG, To answer your question, I'm not sure, but if it were shown (by real scientists) that abortion, even when properly performed, were significantly more dangerous than the childbirth it prevents, that would be a start toward changing my mind.Only a start, because I believe people are entitled to do things that are bad for them if they wish, but that would be step one.
But it's entirely not a matter of whether abortion is bad for the woman, since after all abortion also FATALLY impacts somebody else. You posted your Thought for the Day, "Escaping from a pack of starving wolves is more dangerous than submitting to them. For the wolves."
No matter how much safer abortion might be for the mother, unless it's botched it's 100% fatal for somebody else.
Now, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on how much better it has to be for the woman to make it worth gaining at the cost of the baby's life. Your stand, if I get it right, is that no matter how bad or good it is for the mother, if she elects for it, the mere ability to make the choice with no legal obstacle is in and of itself worth the price the baby pays, its life.
I hold that because the cost is the child's life, that it's like any other situation in which you're weighing one life against another -- only so many people will fit in the lifeboat, you only have time to pull one person out of the burning truck before it explodes, etc.
We're gonna disagree on that. Clearly that's not gonna change.
We're also gonna disagree on whether or not killing babies really is something that's ultimately good for women. I take Frederica Matthews-Green's "Anything that proposes to help women by killing their children has got a lot of explaining to do." You're coming from the stand that even if it turns out that she's worse off, the freedom to have chosen it is overall so good that it's worth the sacrifice of an unlimited number of babies' lives, and the occasional woman's devastation or even death, because of the freedom factor.
Which is where we get to your second thing:
Now I ask you one: is there anything that could happen, even hypothetically, that could lead you to think that maybe banning human slavery isn't the best idea ever?
Why would I? Unlike prochoicers, I hold that all human beings are of equal worth. Just as I can't agree with you that mothers own their unborn children and can do whatever they want with them, I can't agree that any other human being has a right to own another.
You wrote: "You're coming from the stand that ... the freedom to have chosen it is overall so good that it's worth the sacrifice of an unlimited number of babies' lives,..."
And you're coming from the stand that the freedom to choose whether or not to give blood is worth the sacrifice of an unlimited number of patients who could be saved by mandatory blood donations. So we agree that in certain cases, the freedom to choose is more important than life. Q: What characterizes such cases? A: They involve using the contents of one person's body to sustain another person's life. For that you need the permission of the body's owner.
You wrote: "Unlike prochoicers, I hold that all human beings are of equal worth."
I hold that also.
You wrote: "Just as I can't agree with you that mothers own their unborn children"
No, that's not what I think. The mother doesn't own the unborn baby. She owns the uterus which sustains the unborn baby's life. ANd the water, nutrients, and oxygen in HER bloodstream which the fetus takes and lives on.
Your right to kill a patient who needs a transplant, by keeping both your kidneys (withholding something essential for his life) doesn't mean, and doesn't depend on, the idea that you own the patient. Just that you own the kidneys.
Again, you're basing arguments on pretending to misunderstand what I write. That let's you answer back, but your answer doesn't win any arguments.
SoMG, a fetus in the womb is where it is supposed to be. You might as well say that parents have a right to kill their teenagers because the kids are in the parents' house, using up their resources and intruding on their personal space.
And the teenager has much more control of where he is than a fetus does -- who is where he is because of what his MOTHER did (in cahoots with his father).
No, a fetus is not "supposed" to be in the womb unless the owner of the womb wants it there.
Otherwise the fetus is supposed to go quietly into that good night.
Having sex makes babies. If you don't want a baby don't have sex. It's no good having sex and then whining because you end up pregnant. Be responsible for your actions.
Secular Heretic, getting an abortion IS being responsible for your actions.
No, a responsible person would avoid getting pregnant in the first place. An abortion is just an attempt to cover up the couples irresponsibility.
SoMG, and how exactly are you proposing that the fetus check with the mother prior to its conception to make sure it's okay with her if he comes into existence? That seems a lot to ask.
GG, nice one. No I'm not asking the fetus to do that before it's conceived. What I'm asking is: if your mother aborts you, be grateful for your short intrauterine life and don't go around asking for someone to force her to give you more life inside her body than she chooses.
Maybe the fetus would reply: "I'm not the one doing that. I don't expect anything from mom that she's not willing to give. It's those misguided right-to-lifers!"
" 'Stop complaining,' said the farmer,
'Who told you a calf to be?
Why don't you have wings to fly with,
Like the swallow, so proud and free?' "--Donna Donna.
SoMG,
I disagree. Once people saw Jim Crow, public opinion shifted away from southern discrimination. The same was true with slavery and the same will be true here. I have seen it happen over and over when I have taught ethics. It is the same reason why gay marriage is not legal across the nation-people can see it. As for late term pictures at early clinics, it shouldn’t matter, later or early. Killing a human being earlier in its development is still killing a human being nonetheless. Besides, even at many early abortions, plenty if discernable human parts are visible.
As for your comments on billing the Vatican, it strikes me as rather callous and inane, not to mention just plain specious. If it is a human being, why should Catholics, of which I am not one, have to foot the bill when the right to life is a fundamental life recognized by Constitutional law? Nothing else here really looks like an attempt at a reasoned argument.
And why should abortion need to be shown to be more dangerous to the woman, when it is lethal to the infant? The fundamental questions are these, can human beings be property and is the unborn entity a human being? If it isn’t what else would we need to add to it for it to quality? The pro-choice position is that the infant is property and so the woman can do with it what she decides. It is the same argument used by the pro-slavery Democrats of the 19th century.
The analogy with blood donations is a weak analogy as well. There is a principled difference between the lack of something being present to save a life and an overt action that causes the death of another person. You are comparing apples and oranges. Furthermore, the body in question isn’t the woman’s body, but someone else’s, which is why it has its own DNA. Furthermore, the patient analogy doesn’t fly here for the relation the patient has is not a natural one but an artificial one. The relation between the mother and the child is a natural one and isn’t sustained directly by her choice any more than any other autonomic bodily action. The baby already has access to those things, whereas some patient in a hospital gets them by choice. The two are not comparable.
As for “fetus”, it simply means baby in Latin. Renaming it doesn’t change what it is. And it only follows that the baby is supposed to be in the womb if the woman wants it there if we presuppose the position you are supposed to be establishing, so you are engaged in question begging.
Acolyte, you wrote: "And why should abortion need to be shown to be more dangerous to the woman, when it is lethal to the infant?"
Because the infant is located inside the mother's body. That's why.
You wrote: "The fundamental questions are these, can human beings be property and is the unborn entity a human being?"
The fundamental answers are no and yes. No, humans cannot be property. And yes, the unborn are humans but that doesn't entitle them to live inside their mothers' bodies unless it's OK with her. Even though they're not property.
You wrote: "The pro-choice position is that the infant is property..."
Nope. The pro-choice position is that the uterus, not the baby, is the woman's property. The life-support functions. The nutrients in the mother's bloodstream that she finds, eats, and digests. The oxygen she breathes. The water she drinks. THOSE are her property. The fetus is not property but it is in the unfortunate but not unique position of needing stuff that it is not entitled to, except by someone else's charity.
You wrote: "It is the same argument used by the pro-slavery Democrats of the 19th century."
The slaves in the 19th Century were not inside their masters' bodies.
You wrote: "The analogy with blood donations is a weak analogy as well."
I haven't made any analogy. I have described certain commonalities. Any pair of things has commonalities and differences between them. Noting commonalities is NOT making an analogy.
You wrote: "There is a principled difference between the lack of something being present to save a life and an overt action that causes the death of another person."
Ah yes, the "killing vs letting-die" argument. I hope you're shouting prayers of gratitude for medical abortion, which directly affects only the placenta or uterus or interface, not the embryo or fetus (depending on when it's being done). Shuts off the life support and the e/f gets to do as well as it can without it. Dies of poisoning by its own metabolic endproducts. Not directly killed. Personally I don't see much importance in the difference--the guy who's dying because you keep both your kidneys isn't thinking about how grateful he is to you for not stabbing him--but some people seem to think it's important.
You wrote: "You are comparing apples and oranges."
Wow. Three points. First of all, go buy a high-school creative writing textbook and look up Cliches, avoidence of. Secondly, you're not even using the cliche right; it's "you can't COMBINE apples and oranges", about the necessity of expressing fractions with common denominators before adding them. "Compare" is an error. Thirdly, it's not true. I CAN compare apples and oranges. Apples are crunchier. See?
You wrote: "Furthermore, the body in question isn’t the woman’s body, but someone else’s,..."
It's INSIDE the woman's body. That's why she's entitled to kill it.
You wrote: "... which is why it has its own DNA."
No, really? Have you phoned the Times?
You wrote: "The relation between the mother and the child is a natural one..."
So what? Cancer is natural. Natural doesn't equal good for you.
"... and isn’t sustained directly by her choice any more than any other autonomic bodily action."
If it were, if she could reliably cause an abortion by changing her diet or just by a direct act of will, would that make any difference to whether it's right or wrong?
You wrote: "The baby already has access to those things, whereas some patient in a hospital gets them by choice. The two are not comparable."
ANY two things or ideas are comparable. I'll bet a million bucks if you name any two things I can compare them in ten seconds or less.
For someone who has taught ethics, your writing and your reasoning are about maybe C+ level.
I am not clear on how we get from the location of the baby to the conclusion you draw. If it is a human being then its nature doesn’t change based on location.
You wrote: "The fundamental questions are these, can human beings be property and is the unborn entity a human being?"
If humans can’t be property then the life of the baby trumps the woman’s choice, since she is not entitled to actively deprive someone of life without due process. Further, even if the pro-choice position were that the uterus is the woman’s property, that seems dubious to me. Under current law, even if one’s body were understood in terms of property, it wouldn’t follow that the woman was entitled to do with it as she pleases. Suicide is still illegal and one isn’t entitled to do medical experiments on oneself either. The fact that the infant is dependent on the mother doesn’t imply that the life of the infant is ethically contingent on her choice either. And given current law, not just good ethical thinking, humans by nature are endowed with the right to life and so are also entitled to a measure of air, food, etc. Simply asserting the claim that the baby isn’t entitled to such things without argument is simply question begging.
True, most of the slaves of the 19th century were not located in the same place, though some of them were. The children of slaves were property as well by the same reasoning. In any case, the my property, my choice line was essentially the pro-slavery line then. The location of the property is irrelevant to the nature of it qua property.
The “certain commonalities” was an attempt to make an argument by analogy, namely such and so isn’t implied in this case and this other case is like the former, and so it isn’t implied in the latter as well.And if you weren’t, then the conclusion drawn from commonalities doesn’t follow sine nothing much follows from two things having some things in common other than that two things have some things in common. But you wished to draw an ethical conclusion and so you were attempting to make some form of argument.
There was no “killing vs. letting die” argument. There was a principled distinction between an overt action and an event occurring due to an existing deficiency. That principle may be at work in the case you mention, but it has wider application. This principle was used in the service of my argument that you made a false analogy.
Further the case you mention is still a case of an overt action resulting in death and not a naturally existing deficiency as in the case of cancer or some other disease. So this is another false analogy. Frankly, I see the distinction is vitally important since there is a difference between doctors and a person who die due to an already existing deficiency and doctors who actively poison patients.
“Apples and oranges” is a handy way of pointing out a false analogy. So I’d suggest you pick up a college Logic textbook since it is routinely employed in them as well. In any case, we can ditch the idiom and just use the term false analogy. Your reasoning is fallacious regardless of the etymology of the term used to denote it.
I am not clear on why the location of the baby entitled the woman to terminate its existence. How do we get from, it is located inside the woman, to, the woman can kill it if she so wishes? Further, the pro-choice position permitted and even advocated killing children once they were outside the woman and no longer dependent on her (que Obama), so the point is moot. If the child is a human being it is entitled to life regardless of the dependency of its life on the mother. The right to life is inalienable and so it is not granted by the mother or the state. The child has it by virtue of what it is, a human being, dependent or not dependent. This is why your reasoning is specious.
I noted that the baby has its own DNA since the pop pro-choice position claims the woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. But since the baby has its own DNA, it is not her body.
The relation of cancer to the patient is not a natural one, but a deficiency, which is why the cancer will kill the patient. Further, cancer is not a self organizing distinct being. So again, this is a false analogy. Further you are equivocating on the term natural. Cancer is natural in so far as it occurs in nature, but so is rape, incest, murder, etc. Do you mean to equate reproduction as a bodily function with those things as well qua nature? That seems widely implausible. By natural I meant, according to an organized bodily function to produce and sustain an appropriate end, namely a new human being. Cancer consequently is not comparable.
No, if the life of the baby were sustained by the woman’s choice it wouldn’t imply by itself whether the action is moral or not, since plenty of actions done purely by will are immoral as well, such as say murder.
Further, you seem not to grasp the usage and implication of the term “comparable.” I am using it in its logical sense so that two things are not comparable, if they do not share the relevant commonalities, they could only form a contrast. Most of your arguments turn on some commonality and I have shown that they in fact lack the relevant commonalities you claim and so your arguments are not truth preserving.
Your evaluation of my writing and reasoning skills would only be significant and germane if you had the requisite education and training in the respective fields. Lacking a C.V. from you, I’ll leave the evaluation to my professional peers.
You wrote: "If it is a human being then its nature doesn’t change based on location."
Right, it's NATURE doesn't change, but what it is entitled to DOES change. What I am entitled to depends on location--what country I am in, on whose property I am on, and most especially on whether or not I am located inside another person's body.
You wrote: "The “certain commonalities” was an attempt to make an argument by analogy, namely such and so isn’t implied in this case and this other case is like the former, and so it isn’t implied in the latter as well."
Nope. The transplant example was solely in order to illustrate that there are some things we're not allowed to do even in order to save lives.
You wrote: "I am not clear on why the location of the baby entitled the woman to terminate its existence. How do we get from, it is located inside the woman, to, the woman can kill it if she so wishes? "
How do we get to anything? Some things are intrinsic. If I were to crawl into your body, you'd discover a right to kill me, or expel me even if that meant killing me, quickly enough.
You wrote: "The relation of cancer to the patient is not a natural one, but a deficiency,
No, cancer is not caused by a deficiency, and yes, it is natural.
You wrote:"Further, cancer is not a self organizing distinct being."
A tumor is a distinct being. Also, it is self-organizing, it organizes its own blood supply.
You wrote: "No, if the life of the baby were sustained by the woman’s choice it wouldn’t imply by itself whether the action is moral or not, "
Then why did you bring up the fact that the woman cannot abort by a simple act of will? Just to fill up space???
You wrote: "Your evaluation of my writing and reasoning skills would only be SIGNIFICANT and GERMANE if... " (my emphasis)
Now you need to look up "Redundancy, avoidence of".
There's something else the transplant issue illustrates, besides the fact that there are some things we're not allowed to do even in order to keep an innocent person alive.
Suppose I ask you to explain: WHY are you entitled to bring about a preventable death by keeping both your kidneys?
First you might say I have no obligation to save a stranger. Well suppose the patient's your child.
Then you might say withholding the kidney isn't "directly" killing, not "doing something" to cause death. OK, suppose there's a mysterious unexplained force which sometimes causes a kidney to disappear from inside a healthy person and reappear inside a patient, saving his life. We don't know how it works but we do know you can feel when it's about to happen and you can prevent it by taking a special pill which keeps your kidney in your body but the patient dies for lack of the kidney. Would you be justified in taking that pill? Almost everyone would say yes. But now you're "doing something" which causes death.
In the end you will have only one argument left: I'm entitled to keep the kidney, and to decide who gets to benefit from its function, because it's part of my body. And for no other reason than that. It's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body".
Post a Comment