-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: VBAC discussion From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse (el@lisse.NA) Sun Oct 29 11:24:03 2000 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Paul Prior MD: "Re: hyperemesis case" Previous message: Dr Eberhard W Lisse: "Re: VBAC" In reply to: DoctorJoe@aol.com: "Re: VBAC discussion" Next in thread: Garry Siegel: "Re: VBAC discussion" Joe, Kathi, Ah, those shit house laywers at it again :-)-O Roe vs Wade has nothing to do with defining when a person becomes a person (I think case law has decided that this happens at birth) but says that at that stage (less then 12 weeks) the rights of the mother count more. After viability the fetus has quite a lot of rights. And if you read your posts again you really don't want it to go the other way, ie 12 bums off the street who are to stupid to avoid jury duty decide that in addition to malpractice a letal outcome constitutes manslaughter, now, do you? Lastly, to use the word logic in the same context with the US legal system defies comprehension. el At 09:17 29.10.00 -0600, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 10/29/00 8:33:24 AM, kdew@bellsouth.net writes: > ><< People have the right to be wrong, the right to their own opinions and the >right to place themselves in danger. One could argue that the fetus should >not be placed in a dangerous predicament (i.e. home VBAC) but the US has >determined that the fetus has no rights (see Roe v. Wade) I'm waiting for >some shrewd malpractice defense attorney representing a provider being sued >for actions resulting in fetal damage to use the defense that the US Supreme >Court has determined that the fetus is a "non-person", therefore how can one >harm a "non-entity?" >> > >The logic of this position is extremely powerful. Once you make the decision >[and I'm NOT saying it's good or bad... I'm just saying from a logic >standpoint you decide the fetus either has no rights or rights subservient to >the mother's - so don't flame me, either], then how can you force a woman NOT >to drink, NOT to take drugs, NOT to have "safe" prenatal care (as you define >it), yada, yada, yada? There seems to me to be no logical way you can argue >the fact, since the mother can do whatever she wants to herself, and the baby >necessarily takes a back seat. > >Joe P Next message: Paul Prior MD: "Re: hyperemesis case" Previous message: Dr Eberhard W Lisse: "Re: VBAC" In reply to: DoctorJoe@aol.com: "Re: VBAC discussion" Next in thread: Garry Siegel: "Re: VBAC discussion"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Dec 2 04:48:32 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.