|
|
|
|
"Telemedical" Abortion:
Innovating ... or Increasing the Risk to Women?
Part Two of Three By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research
To most of us, exposing women to danger and abandoning them is obviously foolhardy and irresponsible. Some others see this as pioneering work. I give you Kathleen Reeves, writing at the pro-abortion site RHRealityCheck. What she is discussing in her August 23, 2010, column is Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's new "telemedicine" program in Iowa. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH) has set up a video conferencing system at many of its smaller or more remote clinics. The abortionist, located at a larger office in Des Moines, uses a closed circuit to talk with a woman he sees over a computer video screen. If she indicates she wants a chemical abortion and he is satisfied with her responses to a few medical questions, the abortionist clicks a mouse which releases a drawer miles away at her location. Inside is the abortifacient RU486 and the powerful prostaglandin misoprostol which stimulates the contractions needed to expel the tiny corpse. The woman never actually is in the same room as the doctor and he never does an actual physical exam. If there is a problem--and complications like hemorrhage, infection, and gastrointestinal distress have occurred with some frequency with the use of RU486--she will probably have to seek help elsewhere, since her abortionist is miles away. Worse yet, the nearest ER may not be that close either, and the doctors there may be unfamiliar with her condition or the chemical abortion process and its complications. At least a dozen women have died after taking these powerful abortion drugs, and that was before this latest "innovation." Addressing the charge that PPH's telemedical abortions may not be legal because they are not "performed by a physician"--as Iowa law requires-- RHReality Check's Reeves argues that the abortionist fulfills his obligation by counseling the woman. "True, medication abortion straddles the line between procedure and prescription: while the physician only acts insofar as giving a woman two pills, the more significant part of the procedure is the counseling that precedes it," Reeves says. The physician's role, she argues, is in sharing his "knowledge" and "expertise" in the initial video conference (RHRealityCheck, 8/23/10). This would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high. No child was ever aborted by mere counseling. The risk a woman faces is not from the doctor sharing his "expertise," but from her ingesting the pills and experiencing the consequences and the complications that come with the abortion. When these pills "work," they do not simply target the unborn child, but the woman's reproductive and other systems. They initiate copious bleeding, painful cramps, and often nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Some women have experienced heart palpitations, drops in blood pressure, dizziness. A number of women do not abort or do not have a complete abortion, requiring some surgical intervention. If women are going to choose to use this risky method, they need to be closely monitored and they need to have medical help close at hand, not hundreds of miles away. Though unintentionally, Reeves helps make this case when she notes the dearth of facilities and qualified physicians available to women in rural areas. "These clinics tend to be few and far between, with small staffs, and thus, most likely, limited hours." Reeves tries to claim that "the most substantive and often difficult part of an abortion happens before a woman visits a clinic....the abortion procedure, whether surgical or by medication, is uncomplicated and very low-risk. The complicated part is the choice, and for that a woman doesn't need a doctor." Ok – so what happened to the idea that abortion was supposed to be a matter "between a woman and her doctor?" It turns out that that old slogan was only a ruse, making it sound like there might be some medical necessity involved in the decision. In truth, it was just a cover all along for the sort of abortion on demand Reeves now asserts directly. When a woman is bleeding to death, a phone call isn't going to suffice. When she has retained tissue from an incomplete abortion, a videoconference isn't going to do her any good. When she's suffering an allergic reaction to the medicine, she needs something more than computer screen counseling. She needs a doctor who will be there, who will take responsibility for her case, who will personally ensure that she gets the care that she needs. A woman gets none of that with her long distance doctor. If and when her moment of crisis comes, there's a good chance she'll be all alone. That hardly sounds like something to celebrate. Sounds like the folks at RHRealityCheck need a reality check of their own. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
