Re: !!
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Mon Apr 24 08:17:38 2000
somewhere bob is asking, "and your evidence is?"
Art
At Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Rafael Haciski MD wrote:
>
>And what insight gives you the knowledge that the pregnancy is "biologically
>doomed" and not caused by dropping progesterone levels/dailing corpus luteum
>function??
>
>Why, is this not the premise behind RU-486 abortifacient?
>Is it not know that removing the corpus luteum in early pregnancy (thus
>removing the source of progesterone) leads to a spontaneous abortion?
>
>I think that such absolute dogmatism as you espouse in your note is without
>any justification. On the contrary, if there is suggestion that there may
>be a failing of the corpus luteum function, progesterone supplementation may
>eliminate it and possibly save the pregnancy. Certainly, it will not save a
>pregnancy that is failing from other cause, but the patient is well aware of
>that, and in no way deluded by false hope!
>
>--
>Rafael Haciski, MD FACOG
>Gynecology and Infertility Associates
>Baltimore, MD
>410-825-0020
>web......http://www.IVF-MD.com
>e-mail..GIA@IVF-MD.com
>
>> From: Zach Newton <zbnewton@mindspring.com>
>> Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
>> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:34:28 -0500
>> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@forum.obgyn.net>
>> Subject: Re: OB: Recurrent Pregnancy Loss
>>
>> Garry Siegel wrote:
>>
>>> you think?
>>
>> I think that there is no scientific justification outside of IVF for the
>> common use of progesterone support for a biologically doomed conception.
>>
>> The cost of utilization resource and anguish derived from false hope
>> borne by the effected patient is factious.
>>
>> Zach Newton
>> Z. B. Newton, III, M.D.
>> Atlanta/Gyn
>>
--
art fougner, md
A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote.
|
|
