Posted on 08/30/2023 12:11:32 AM PDT by Morgana
(National Review) The legalization of euthanasia and abortion means that some members of the medical profession have become more than willing to take human lives as opposed to saving them.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology supports radical access to abortion, including later in pregnancy. Its journal, Obstetrics and Gynecology, just published a study, funded by a Stanford Medical School institute, arguing that abortion limits post-Dobbs will stress health-care-system resources because more babies with a particular heart defect will be born:
In a theoretical, data-driven simulation of the effects of varying abortion bans on neonatal single-ventricle cardiac defects, our model predicted an increase in the number of neonates born with single-ventricle cardiac defects and, thus, an increase in the number of neonates requiring heart surgeries, heart transplants, and ECMO and in neonatal deaths, substantially affecting health care systems. [Emphasis added.]
How many more babies with the condition will be born?
In the scenario of a complete abortion ban, the model predicted a 53.7% increase in the diagnosis of neonatal single-ventricle cardiac defects, or an additional 9 cases per 100,000 live births. This increase would result in an additional 531 neonatal heart surgeries, 16 heart transplants, 77 ECMO utilizations, and 102 neonatal deaths annually. . . . [Emphasis added.]
Two additional abortion scenarios, including an abortion ban at 13 weeks of gestation and a ban at 20 weeks of gestation, were also analyze. In the scenario of an abortion ban at 13 weeks of gestation, live births would increase to 1,385, resulting in 1,357 heart surgeries, 40 heart transplants, 196 ECMO utilizations, and 261 neonatal deaths. In the abortion ban scenario at 20 weeks of gestation, the model predicted 1,361 live births, with a total of 1,333 heart surgeries, 39 heart transplants, 142 ECMO utilizations, and 189 neonatal deaths.
The abnormality is serious, but many of these babies can be saved, as described in a story published about the journal article by the Stanford Medical News Center:
The condition can be treated with three open-heart surgeries performed in the first two to three years of life. The surgeries reroute blood so that the right ventricle pumps oxygen-rich blood throughout the body instead of pumping only to the lungs. Although the surgeries can be lifesaving, they do not restore normal heart structure. Even with excellent surgical care, some patients die in infancy or childhood, and others suffer damage to the brain, lungs, liver, kidneys or intestines. Some affected children receive a heart transplant instead, which provides a heart with normal physiology but also requires a lifetime of immune-suppressing drugs to prevent rejection of the organ. [Emphasis added.]
This seems, to me, to go beyond an objective description of the risks of surgery and to verge on implying that children experiencing ill health or disabilities would be better off never being born.
In what sounds to me like advocating a search-and-destroy mission, the authors of this article urge that methods be found to detect the problem before an ultrasonogram at 18 weeks — which is when the defect is now detectable — so that abortions can be performed earlier in the pregnancy before some bans would take effect:
A universal 15-week ban would likely prompt the need for earlier detailed fetal anatomy imaging, although most cardiac anomalies are not detected in the first trimester even in experienced centers. In efforts to prepare for varying abortion bans, clinicians providing prenatal care should use standardized anatomical protocols to attempt to improve the sensitivity of first-trimester ultrasonography to increase detection rates of fetal anomalies. This likely would translate into an increase cost to the health care system due to earlier and more extensive diagnostic testing. [Emphasis added.]
The authors conclude:
As restrictions are being enacted, the potential effects of these anomalies on health care resources should guide policy makers. States considering limiting abortion access should consider the implications of such policies on the resources required to care for the increasing number of children that will be born with significant and complex medical needs, including congenital heart disease. [Emphasis added.]
The article could have celebrated the lives that will be saved and urged states to prepare to help these children. Instead, its utilitarianism reeks like a sewer with the clear preference for aborting babies with genetic “defects.” (The call for earlier detection is the tell.) Disgusting.
Soooo .... let me get this straight..
we have developed better health care ...
thus .. we need to kill more babies?
Follow the $$$ ...I suppose it's easier to kill a kid then to fix his heart... more volume business too.
Probably have to a be little higher then the bottom 5 or 10% of your med class to be a cardiologist.
I don’t see how killing a kid is better healthcare either. However having more pediatric cardiologists doing more heart surgeries on babies? That might improve it and make it cheaper and easier in the long run.
Killing babies, helps healthcare? Only lunatics would think that.
Typical leftist thinking: don't try to fix a problem by increasing the supply, improving the technology, or other innovative solutions. Instead, apply more control and misery to people's lives because of a declared scarcity.
Now do illegal aliens.
I have been in healthcare from r decades. I heard groups of nurses, doctors and people in ancillary areas talk and laugh about how unvaccinated people should be denied all care. This was as recent as April 2023.
This is an extension of that thought. Obey or die so we can take care of only the obedient. People are dying of organ failure for the very same reason.
Your doctor is likely a bureaucratic servant of the administrative state.
Stop trusting these people and stop seeing them whenever possible.
How many stories of them letting people die do you have to hear before you believe it.
Fewer democrats would also avoid strain on health care.
The last paragraph says it all
Fewer illegal aliens would reduce the strain on health care too.
There would be no strain on health care if government were not constricting it to death.
That reasoning would suggest we need more school shootings.
Now do illegal aliens.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This
EC
With abortion being argued to ease the healthcare industry, where is the other side of thd healthcare coin with euthanaia also arguing to ease the healthcare systdm??
How about not getting pregnant.
“Killing babies, helps healthcare?”
Killing babies and the elderly (euthanasia) lower medical costs. Killing criminals lowers law enforcement costs. Killing political opponents makes governing easier.
I know what you are talking about! I still read stories about those on pro life sites I just don’t always post them.
They want to deny medical services to those who did not take the vaccine still. Yet people are dropping dead all over the world for no reason who took the vaccine.
That’s not the answer. How about we just abort The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology?
I bet they said similar things in Nazi Germany...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.