A woman with mild pre-eclampsia can go home on blood pressure meds, home monitoring, frequent follow up with obstetrician.
Yeni Glick seems to have not understood the need for compliance, or not had the resources to do so.
A woman preventing with severe, imminently life threatening pre-eclampsia shouldn’t be sent home. It doesn’t matter if she was compliant or not beforehand, it doesn’t matter whether she will be compliant at home. She is not truly stable.
The New Yorker author talks about doctors being afraid to suggest abortion, but they don’t seem to have told her that she and the baby could die if she went home either. They don’t seem to have suggested that a very early induced delivery might be necessary.
Although she does say that very premature babies have high mortality and high disability rates, but that is the author dismissing early delivery in favor of abortion, not the patient or her doctors doing so.
The article said after.the initial ICU stay, they determined she didn’t have pre-eclampsia. I would guess they got that wrong. Diabetes, injured lungs, cardiac overload, and pre-eclampsia.
I would guess that the New Yorker article is full of holes and the patient being noncompliant with life saving medical directives as well as not having obtained insurance and no husband in any real part of this story the story is way full of holes
They’re suggesting through propaganda and no medical evidence that an abortion would have been warranted