|
|
|
|
Iowa Board of Medicine
Allows Web-Cam Abortions to Continue
Part Three of Three By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research
It comes as no surprise, but Iowa's Board of Medicine has decided not to discipline an abortionist from Planned Parenthood for performing so-called "web-cam" abortions. The Des Moines Registered reported today that Board issued a letter this week saying that it would not sanction Dr. Susan Haskell. As is usual in these circumstances, it gave no explanation or justification for its decision. The web-cam system allows an abortionist in Des Moines to "counsel" women in other parts of the state over a closed circuit video system and then release, via remote control, a drawer containing abortion pills at her location. She is not actually in the physical presence of the doctor. Planned Parenthood's largest affiliate in the state, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, has been using the web-cam abortion system at its clinics since 2008. Sixteen Iowa abortion clinics are now "hooked into the system," according to Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. The group has said it has been used by more than 2,000 women. Different groups had complained to the Medical Board, saying that the process violated Iowa regulations requiring that abortions only be performed by a physician. According to the Register a letter was sent out signed by executive director, Mark Bowden, "saying that it would not sanction Dr. Susan Haskell, a Planned Parenthood physician who uses the system." Planned Parenthood argued then, as now, that what they are doing is simply modern "telemedicine," an innovation being used to bring medical care to people in many remote rural areas all over the country. June told the Register that any attempt to ban telemedical abortions [web-cam abortions] "would be turning the clock backwards and really discriminating against people who want and need health care but don't happen to live in urban areas." As this demonstrates, it is in Planned Parenthood's interest to make this a discussion over telemedicine in general rather than the unique risks associated with chemical abortion and what telemedicine does to compound those risks. Chemical abortions--typically the dangerous two-drug RU-486 abortion technique--comes with significant risks and side effects and is an entirely elective procedure. Given those considerations, the added risk brought on by an absent, distant doctor can't possibly outweigh whatever are supposed to be the imagined "benefits" of a telemedical abortion. Medical treatment always comes with risks, even when it just involves taking an over-the-counter medication. The critical medical judgment, however, is always whether the benefits outweigh the risks. The greater the medical necessity, the higher level of medical risk one is willing to tolerate. What one does not do--and it is precisely what is being done here--is introduce a high level of risk when there is absolutely no medical necessity. RU-486 isn't a drug that simply makes women feel uncomfortable, gives them a headache, or temporarily triggers an irregular heartbeat. Besides severe pain and literally gut wrenching side effects, this drug triggers bleeding. Significant, serious bleeding. Despite what the salespeople for RU-486 say, this is not simply like a "heavy period." Studies show that the blood loss from a chemically-induced abortion with RU486 is actually four times what is expected from a surgical abortion, even when things go as planned. These drugs can, and have, by themselves, triggered severe bleeding and hemorrhage in hundreds of women, many requiring transfusions. Now, if someone's life is at risk and qualified medical help simply isn't available, such as when an emergency tracheotomy is needed to prevent a person from suffocating in a matter of minutes, it would make sense to avail oneself of a telemedical option, to have an expert physician guide one through a lifesaving procedure. Or if it were a minor thing, with no real immediate serious repercussions, such as a sore throat or a bump on the arm that needs to be looked at, it is perfectly fine to go the telemedical route. But when the procedure is totally elective, medically unnecessary, and when the risk is significant, as it is here, when several women using the drugs have died or at least had to be hospitalized, such an option is totally irresponsible. When it first approved RU-486, the FDA made clear that "Administration must be under the supervision of a qualified physician." Why did the FDA go out of its way to write that requirement into the label if it didn't believe a doctor needed to be close at hand? It did so because its study of the data led the FDA to believe that the risk was such that a doctor -- not a nurse, not a physician's assistant, not a counselor or a clinic receptionist -- was needed to monitor a woman's health and safety as she went through the process, to be available to step in in the event of a medical emergency. A woman who has only a brief teleconference with the abortionist from the state's largest abortion clinic doesn't have that sort of access to the doctor. If she unknowingly has an ectopic pregnancy and it ruptures; if she comes down with a virulent infection; if she starts to hemorrhage – as hundreds of RU-486 patients have – her doctor could be hundreds of miles away. That's not what telemedicine was made for and not how the FDA intended these drugs to be used. Abortion has already corrupted medicine, causing many doctors to break the first rule of medical ethics – do no harm. Now it is corrupting the promising field of telemedicine, using technology to kill rather than to heal. 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. |
