The National Health Law Program, a public interest firm, has put out a stunning report on health care restrictions in hospitals and clinics. They report that 1 in 6 Americans will visit medical practices that have restrictions of some kind, more than likely based on ideological principals instead of scientific and ethical medical practice. Reproductive health is, of course, the category that a large number of those restrictions fall under.
A particular side bar story on page 7 of the report caught my eye, mostly because it took place right here in Oklahoma :
"Carla, who lives in eastern Oklahoma, thought
she had the flu. Her family doctor referred her to an
Obstetrician/Gynecologist (OB/GYN) who discovered
she was pregnant and that she had a large mass
growing on her uterus. Carla’s youngest child was
already 16, and she decided to have an abortion, but
when she went to the abortion clinic she was told
that she needed to have the mass removed before she
could have the abortion. Then her encounter with
health care refusals began. The OB/GYN refused
to remove the mass because it would endanger the
pregnancy. The anesthesiologist in the practice group
refused to give her any drugs that would harm the
pregnancy. At this point the mass was shutting off her
colon and bladder. Eventually Carla found a doctor
an hour and a half away in another city, but due to
the substantial delay, he had to remove her uterus,
a procedure that would have been unnecessary if the
abortion had been performed earlier in her pregnancy.
Carla and her family were left with $40,000 in
"Doctors" more than willing to let a patient die to preserve a pregnancy that will terminate anyway when the patient dies. Not seeing the logic here.
First do no harm indeed.