Monday, December 15, 2008

Needless risk? "SWEET!"

Abortion Blogger went in for her chemical abortion today. Turns out they couldn't find the embryo on the ultrasound. So they gave her the abortion pill anyway, so she won't have to wait two weeks for a confirmed diagnosis.

Abortion Blogger's comment? "SWEET!"

They couldn't find an embryo. So they didn't definitively even diagnose an intrauterine pregnancy. But they gave her treatment based on that diagnosis. How is that responsible medicine?

She might actually have a blighted ovum (which will resolve on its own). But they gave her medication anyway, taking payment and subjecting her to risk.

She might have gestational trophoblastic disease, which sometimes resolves on its own but often requires specialized treatment. They didn't do a differential diagnosis to rule out this precancerous condition.

She might have an ectopic pregnancy. (At least they warned her that this is possible.) RU-486 is specifically contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancies:


Administration of Mifeprex and misoprostol for the termination of pregnancy (the “treatment procedure”) is contraindicated in patients with any one of the following conditions:

- Confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy or undiagnosed adnexal mass (the treatment procedure will not be effective to terminate an ectopic pregnancy) (see WARNINGS)

.... 4. Ectopic Pregnancy
Mifeprex is contraindicated in patients with a confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy since Mifeprex is not effective for terminating these pregnancies (see CONTRAINDICATIONS).


At best, she's been subjected to a chemical regimen for a condition (intrauterine pregnancy) that she might not actually have. This woman might not even be pregnant. At worst, she's been subjected to a chemical regimen that is contraindicated for the condition she actually does have.

The clinic got the money either way. And she's glad enough to not have to wait two weeks to start treatment that she doesn't seem to care that they took her money and risked her health when she might not even be pregnant in the first place.

She's gonna have to come back in two weeks anyway for her follow up exam. Why not come back in two weeks and find out what the heck is going on? Why not come back in two weeks and get treatment based on what her actual medical condition is, rather than what everybody's willing to simply assume it is? Or -- more to the point -- why not arrange for serial HCGs or other ongoing supervision of the suspected (and potentially lethal) ectopic pregnancy?

Sometimes I wonder.


Anonymous said...

Reading that blog made me sad. The writing seemed so, oh, what's the word, brittle about it all. A cheery front? Or was it all just business as usual?

Christina Dunigan said...

Abortion blogs always strike me as sad.

Anonymous said...

Yep, the clinic should be using methotrexate rather than RU-486. We were killing tubal pregnancies with methotrexate before it ever occured to anyone to use it on normal pregnancies.

Here's an idea: let's have the government sent ten thousand dollars to anyone who has ever published a paper in the medical literature with the words "methotrexate" and "abortion" in the title. In small bills.

Amy said...

She's obviously a disturbed, misguided young woman. My sympathies to her and any children she might destroy.

Anonymous said...

According to a research article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the clinician was following standard medical protocol. Christina, what kind of medical training did you receive as an ESL teacher, anyway?

From the article: "The very low frequency of ectopic pregnancies diagnosed after medical abortion treatment demonstrates that the various pretreatment screening methods that providers use to exclude patients with ectopic pregnancies are successful. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that medical abortion treatment leads to unusual complications for women with ectopic pregnancies."

Christina Dunigan said...

Clearly fans of abortion are happy with the care this woman got. Set your own standards. God knows they're low enough, given your propensity to trust the National Abortion Federation.

Anonymous said...

GG, your link on NAF is a list of individual bad members. You can make a similar list about any specialty--members of their professional organization with SOME bad stuff on their records, including ones with a lot. It's not a reason to mistrust the professional agency. That's the LIME 5 error. "Look at this one, ooooh, look at that one!" You need numbers, GG, numbers.

Your list isn't even a very convincing list. It has some celebrity baddies but lots of entries which should embarrass you. It blames NAF for the fact that one of their members hired a security guard who turned out to be a rapist. Well at least the NAF clinic owner cooperated in stopping the rapist, which is more than the Catholic Church did under similar circumstances. (By the way, protecting child rapists' enablers IS STILL RCC policy. Cardinal Bernard Law, you know.

Your list also mentions Dr. Tiller with no comment as if his status as a negative asset could be taken for granted. Newsflash: in fact Dr. Tiller's presence on almost any list makes the whole list better. Dr. Tiller is: one of the best in the world at his work, which is varied and challenging; a master practicioner, innovator, and setter of standards, particularly in the incorporation of new technology; a sought-after teacher; a multiple terror survivor who continues to defy his terrorists, and a successful recoveree from an horrific addiction to the most addictive substance in the world (opiate painkillers) who now serves on physician-addiction oversight boards and could easily work as an addiction medicine specialist if he were so inclined.

The funniest is the case of the doc threatening to have the patient committed if she refused to let him finish the abortion. Hello??? That's exactly what you're SUPPOSED to do if a patient really insists on trying to leave in a dangerous condition during a procedure. If you don't, you're liable for the outcome.

Christina Dunigan said...

I realize that the list won't be convincing to people who worship at the altar of abortion. I'm not trying to reach people who think abortionists can by definition do no wrong, or that any wrong they do can be excused away or dismissed as an aberration.

I'm trying to reach people who aren't sure if abortionists are trustworthy or not. You're not in that group, are you?

Anonymous said...

GG, the list also will not be convincing to anyone who knows anything (and I do mean ANYTHING) about medicine, epidemiology, or statistics.

Tonal Bliss said...

SoMG, that is your own opinion. I am a nurse and every case should certainly be looked at with a fine tooth comb. GrannyGump is certainly bias, but she brings to light information that almost no one else wants to. SoMG, if you don't like the information you can choose to remain ignorant.

Show your case, SoMG, that the majority of pre-Roe abortions were NOT done by medical doctors. Show your case, SoMG, that it was NOT the invention of antibiotics but the legalization of abortion that reduced maternal abortion-related deaths. GrannyGump has been kind enough to present her information. Maybe you should do the same.

Anonymous said...

SegaMon I have said before, no one will ever know who did the illegal abortions. That's one of the points about abortion bans--they make it impossible to measure anything.

I think the drop in deaths was due to BOTH improvements in emergency care (including antibiotics) AND legalization.

South Africa in the 1990s shows that legalization prevents harm.

Tonal Bliss said...

This blog has quite a list of people who have committed illegal abortions, actually.

I want to point out a phrase you made: "I think." Thus showing that you're not quite sure.

I'll look into South Africa.

Christina Dunigan said...

SegaMon I have said before, no one will ever know who did the illegal abortions.

We know one thing with 100% accuracy: THEY WERE ALL PROCHOICERS.

Every woman who ever died from an abortion, legal or illegal, amateur or professional, died at the hands of somebody who embraced the idea that killing babies helps women.

Many of them may have changed their minds afterward, but at the time they were wielding the instruments, they were prochoicers.

So all the dead, no matter how many, no matter the circumstances, are on the PROCHOICE doorstep.

Laying them on our doorstep makes as much sense as blaming drunk driving deaths on MADD.

Anonymous said...

Oh brother. And most of the people in the USA who die of cancer, die under the care of doctors. Therefore in order to prevent cancer deaths, we should stop them from seeing doctors!

And yes, if you prevent women from being able to get safe abortions, you share some responsibility for the deaths from unsafe abortions.

Christina Dunigan said...

Where did I say I thought we should keep pregnant women from seeing doctors? Where did I say that we should stand between pregnant women and appropriate medical care?

I'm saying that the obsession with abortion being some sort of boon to humanity is having the effect of denying women REAL medical care by caring and competent doctors, and instead leaving them to the care of people who don't even recognize that it hurts women to kill their babies, that if they're so desperate as to be thinking their child's death is their only escape from a bad situation they need something other than to be scraped out and sent home to cope on their own.

Anonymous said...

Brother, I can't believe I'm wasting time on this. Saying that all abortion patient deaths happen at the hands of pro-choicers is like saying deaths from chemotherapy toxicity all happen at the hands of chemotherapists. If you count the deaths they prevent or delay, the patients come out way ahead. Tom Starzl killed a lot of people too.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the field knows that abortion is life-saving, cost-saving, injury-avoiding, common-sense preventative medicine. You do not help the right-to-life movement by trying to deny this. Denying the benefits makes you look like you're from another planet, like when President GHerbertWB didn't know how a grocery-store scanner worked. You need to focus on persuading people that abortion should be rejected IN SPITE OF its obvious benefits. This may seem daunting but the alternative is to continue the current pattern: gradual, almost entirely symbolic victories for RTLs, punctuated by big, strategically important victories for pro-choicers like 1992 and now, when usually complacent pro-choice voters perceive actual danger in spite of their correct cynicism about the ever-present feminist Chicken-Little-ing.

I love the way conservatives (Douthat, Ponnuru) are saying social issues weren't really on the table this election. Social issues were more important in this election than any since before 1980. Everyone who cares knows that Roe/Wade is one uncertain justice away from going down. If that were not true, the "infanticide" BS leveled against Obama would have stuck. His solo opposition to the Born-Alive Law would have prevented him from being nominated. This year there was no such thing as too pro-choice for the voters. And I haven't even mentioned Sarah Palin. Everyone knew what she meant--overturning Roe/Wade would just be the beginning, and the most extreme possible perversions of right-to-lifism would be likely.

If it appeared not to matter, that's because both candidates' positions were old news way before the campaign started.

Christina Dunigan said...

Brother, I can't believe I'm wasting time on this. Saying that all abortion patient deaths happen at the hands of pro-choicers is like saying deaths from chemotherapy toxicity all happen at the hands of chemotherapists

SoMG, I know that this is very difficult for you to grasp, but ABORTION KILLS BABIES, while CHEMOTHERAPY KILLS CANCERS.

If you consider a baby to be a horrible, terrible evil, like cancer, then I guess you'd consider an abortionist to be like an oncologist, wiping out a dreaded scourge, But you're in the minority. Most people don't consider a baby to be a terror, a horror, a nightmare.

Also, while there may be complications of pregnancy that endanger the mother, THE BABY ITSELF IS NOT THE PROBLEM. It's not an invasive, metastisizing beast that will surely kill its mother if we don't kill it. It's a BABY. An innocent human being. It's something that even you, SoMG, once were.

Christina Dunigan said...

Also, if you can show me anything equivalent to an infertility clinic, where patients spend tens of thousands of dollars and undergo invasive and risky procedures to try to get cancer, I'll buy into your idea that babies are like cancer and that abortionists are in any way akin to oncologists.

Anonymous said...

GG, you wrote: "Most people don't consider a baby to be a terror, a horror, a nightmare."

Then those people are free to stay away from abortion clinics. Vote with your feet, ya know?

Christina Dunigan said...

It'd be nice if the BABIES could elect to stay clear of the abortion clinics as well. After all, THEY have far more invested in the situation than their mothers do.