Re: Stuart Campbell Op-Ed
From: James Smeltzer (James.Smeltzer@wellstar.org)
Thu Oct 5 01:30:06 2006
Art,
I know that fetuses in the second trimester are sensate human beings,
with established behaviors.
When I used to do abortions I used general anesthesia for this reason.
When I did lethal injections I gave umbilical morphine for this reason,
after an 18-week post-saline injection fetus was obviously writhing in
pain (or convulsing) when the mother asked me what was going on.
The Roe v Wade issue was autonomy, which in our culture is more
precious than life, and for which many have died in the past. I
continue to believe - and hope - that the bill of rights remains more
secure and precious than state security or any other needs that come
along. The dividing line was practical, and was based on the ability
of the fetus to be a person, under the law, with protectable rights,
independent of the mother. It therefore was based on viability, and is
clearly obsolete. Twenty-two weeks is a good dividing line now, except
when maternal life is at stake, and may - will -- continue to change.
Independently of this, I know that it is a legitimate use of ultrasound
to let the mother bond with her baby, and perhaps thus to save that baby
from abortion. All the ultrasound does in these circumstances is reveal
the simple truth. The fetus is a sensate being, exploring and
interacting with its environment, not a concept or thing. As the
medical director of a crisis pregnancy center, I have seen this
transformation of awareness occur. I have seen it change women's minds.
I am proud of the fact that I personally trained Audrey Stout, RDMS,
who has trained hundreds of workers at crisis pregnancy centers for this
mission, who have subsequently saved thousands. Audrey also trained and
challenged and changed me in her quiet and unassuming way.
I will be ecstatic when 4-D is good enough and inexpensive enough to
use this way in my clinic.
The question I have is whether it would be legitimate to require women
choosing abortion to recognize what they are doing. Most women choosing
abortion do it out of desperation, ignorance of their many true
options, ignorance of the help they have available and ignorance of the
nature of the being they destroy and the magnitude of their act, and its
potential consequences for themselves. I would hope that they open up
to learn these things before snuffing that completely unique, precious,
human and individual life they carry. Yet I would be against compelling
this.
But the issue of late term abortion is a no-brainer, independent of
dilation and extraction. The law is obsolete. A replacement should
leave open the certainty of improvement in care, and let the Institute
of Medicine decide, from time to time, when life is viable, and
therefore inherently falling under the protection of law.
God made us free, free to create and to destroy, free to choose our
path. It is Christ's message, and purchase for each of us with his own
blood, that we can be forgiven for our sins through him. Otherwise I
can be sure that I would burn eternally in Hell for my past acts
destroying lives.
I agree with Dr. Campbell. Please get involved with a crisis pregnancy
center. The better the sonographer, the more likely a change will occur
in those women considering an abortion. This is as rewarding as any work
that I do.
Jesus saves and is waiting for you to join him in this sonographic army
of truth. Please join Him.
Jim Smeltzer
--
James S. Smeltzer, MD, FACOG, SMFM
Consultant, Maternal Fetal Medicine
Wellstar Physicians' Group
Northwest Women's Care
787 Campbell Hill St
Marietta GA 30060
James.Smeltzer@wellstar.org
VM 678-290-3035
Off 770-528-0260
Page 404-318-3451
>>> art fougner, md <evsono@pipeline.com> 10/3/2006 10:36 PM >>>
Folks
As I carefully don my Flame - Retardant Hazmat Attire, I post this op
ed
from Stuart Campbell. It behooves all Ultrasound Professionals to
consider Professor Campbell's eloquent plea.
Don't tear a smiling foetus from the womb
By Professor Stuart Campbell
(Filed: 04/10/2006)
There is something deeply moving about the image of a baby cocooned
inside the womb. When four-dimensional scans first became available
three years ago, I sat with parents who trembled at the sight of their
soon-to-be newborn. They told me they wanted to stroke its downy
head.
Advanced scanning means we have a window on the secret life of
foetuses.
At 11 weeks we can see them yawn, and even take steps. At 22 weeks,
they begin to open their eyes.
Between 20 and 24 weeks we watch as they seem to cry, smile and frown.
Understandably, these incredible images have influenced the debate on
abortion. I pioneered the 4-D scanning technique in the UK and it has
certainly caused me to question my own opinions.
I now believe the maximum age for abortion should be cut to 18 weeks
so
we do not abort foetuses who exhibit the signs of humanity these
images
portray. Of course, I have been accused of "sentimentality". Maybe
this is right, but I defy anyone to see these pictures and not pause
to
wonder if they might be wrong.
With the 1967 Abortion Act, terminations could be performed up to 28
weeks for "social" abortions. In 1990, the law was changed to 24
weeks.
At that time, a baby born at 23 weeks had less than a 10 per cent
chance
of survival. Now, it has a 66 per cent chance and we must change the
law again.
My most vocal critics, Dr Donald Peebles at University College,
London,
and Dr Huseyin Mehmet at Imperial College, London, claim that these
facial expressions are developmental reflexes. They are defending the
abortion law as it stands.
But I am equally keen to protect a woman's right to choose. I've
watched women die from the after-effects of backstreet abortions. But
we have to draw the line somewhere and 24 weeks is too late.
Pain is a very difficult thing to measure in an unborn baby. Foetuses
have no memory of pain, and no anticipation of it. But if you stuck a
pin into a foetus, I believe it would make a crying face and flinch.
Clearly, that's an experiment we can't carry out, but we can weigh up
the evidence we have and make the best judgment possible.
Babies born at 22 weeks are never treated without analgesics. Why, if
there is scientific evidence to prove their brains are too
under-developed to feel pain or distress, would they be given
medication
to protect them from pain? And if we accept that these babies may feel
pain, why is it so difficult to imagine they would feel the same
sensation inside the womb?
I know if I gently push a baby in the womb at 28 weeks, it will make a
crying face because it has been disturbed. How can we tell so
precisely
the point at which these expressions stop being simple reflexes and
start to mean something?
And even if they can't feel pain, they can certainly survive outside
the
womb. A study at University College Hospital found that 72 per cent
of
babies born at 24 weeks survive. Another study in Minneapolis between
1996 and 2000 reported that at 23 weeks, 66 per cent survive and,
though
they may suffer serious medical complications, 30 per cent of babies
born at 22 weeks will live.
Those casting doubt on whether a smile is really a smile are, in my
opinion, defending the indefensible. If a baby has reached a stage
where it could survive in a neo-natal unit, then the pregnancy
shouldn't
be terminated for social reasons.
And we must focus on terminations for social reasons if we are talking
about amending the law. There are 1,200 terminations a year between
22
and 24 weeks, 70 per cent of which are for non-medical reasons.
We must grasp the nettle now. These are healthy babies, not
brain-dead,
feelingless creatures. When I see a foetus that can smile at me, I
know
absolutely that we should not tear it from the womb.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/04/do0403.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/04/ixopinion.html
Respectfully posted to generate discussion ...
Art
--
art fougner, md
"May The Wings of Liberty Never Lose a Feather." - Jack Burton
<<<<<<<<<<Confidentiality Disclaimer>>>>>>>>>>
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential
and /or proprietary information in the possession of WellStar Health
System, Inc. ("WellStar") and is intended only for the individual or
entity to whom addressed. This email may contain information that is
held to be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized access,
dissemination, distribution or copying of any information from this
email is strictly prohibited, and may subject you to criminal and/or
civil liability. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender by reply email and then delete this email and its attachments
from your computer. Thank you.
