Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

But I think you're taking things on trust because you can't imagine that reasonable safeguards don't exist.

Why are you unable to read the links YOU YOURSELF POST?

What does "A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities"
mean to you?

Do you believe that it's deficient in character for a doctor to perform a legal abortion late in gestation when the doctor believes it is a woman's right to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason?

Do you think it's incompetent for them to do so? Do you think it's fraudulent? Do you think they've engaged in deception?

I assume you also failed to read the repercussions and punishments incurred by violators...

Does it apply to the 80%ish that aren't members of AMA?

Can you show me ANY medical board that doesn't feature those same "safeguards"? Or is it that they don't count without guys with guns showing up in the ER? AFAIK every single State licensing board has similar provisions.

 

[Elixir]

Now, when the standard of care is "Oregon does not restrict abortions based on gestational stage", what standard of care is being failed?

Reading comprehension Ems.
The fact that they don't go with your to-the-day forbiddance doesn't reflect a lack of standards of care. It reflects that unlike you, they have given more than thirty seconds of thought to it before succumbing to emotional distress.

 

[Elixir]

Do you believe that it's deficient in character for a doctor to perform a legal abortion late in gestation when the doctor believes it is a woman's right to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason?

Hypothetically, yes of course. 99% of Doctors agree.

Do you think it's incompetent for them to do so? Do you think it's fraudulent? Do you think they've engaged in deception?

What’s with your fixation on which of the proscribed behaviors is most odious to ME? I have never performed an abortion, and none of the abortions that ever had anything to do with me, conformed to your fantasy.

I shall continue to refer to it as fantasy until you come up with data.
You need to supply data such as what I provided in support of my desire to get legislators out of the OB/GYN business.
Surely you would if you could.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why did you omit the text above that which referred to the physician’s best judgment?

In what way is "physician's best judgement" either materially different or more safeguarded than "physician's personal ethics"?

Because their license depends on it.

No, it doesn't.

How about you go find me the language that specifies that a physician's license depends on them employing safeguards to prevent the termination of health fetuses in healthy mothers in the later stage of gestation? Show me that language and I'll change my mind. Go on, I'll wait.

Typically these standards aren't written out so descriptively, because otherwise, the document would be larger than library of congress.

This seems to break down to assuming that there are totally reasonable safeguards already in place regarding late abortions, it's just that those safeguards aren't actually documented anywhere, nobody knows what they actually entail, but we should just totally trust that the unwritten guidelines would never be violated.

FYI:
Standards of Practice

Standards of Practice - Actuarial Standards Board

www.actuarialstandardsboard.org

Publicly available, reasonably comprehensive guidelines for any actuary who signs any submission to a regulator or auditor, outlining core principles of what should be included and considered.

Code of Professional Conduct

Code of Professional Conduct | American Academy of Actuaries

The revised Code of Professional Conduct took effect Jan.

www.actuary.org

Publicly available, expectations of what professionalism and ethics means within the context of a practicing actuary.


Standards of practice or professionalism should be available for reference. That's what makes them standards in the first place.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm revising my approach, based on the most generous policies in a fair bit of Europe.

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

I'm curious how this will stop a pair of doctors from wink wink, nudge nudge and terminate perfectly healthy fetus's at the very last moment. Also, who is the holder of the signed document of the two doctors?

It doesn't guarantee that wink-wink-nudge-nudge is impossible, but it does reduce the likelihood to a reasonable degree. Holder of the document is... wait for it... medical records! Shocking, I know, that doctors keep documentation for their procedures and interactions in their records. Whodathunkit?

 

[Emily Lake]

But I think you're taking things on trust because you can't imagine that reasonable safeguards don't exist.

Why are you unable to read the links YOU YOURSELF POST?

What does "A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities"
mean to you?

Do you believe that it's deficient in character for a doctor to perform a legal abortion late in gestation when the doctor believes it is a woman's right to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason?

Do you think it's incompetent for them to do so? Do you think it's fraudulent? Do you think they've engaged in deception?

I see you've pretended not to read, and have once again failed to bother answering direct and clear questions.

I assume you also failed to read the repercussions and punishments incurred by violators...

Does it apply to the 80%ish that aren't members of AMA?

Can you show me ANY medical board that doesn't feature those same "safeguards"?

Let me direct you to my prior question:

Do you believe that it's deficient in character for a doctor to perform a legal abortion late in gestation when the doctor believes it is a woman's right to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason? Do you think it's incompetent for them to do so? Do you think it's fraudulent? Do you think they've engaged in deception?

Or is it that they don't count without guys with guns showing up in the ER?

Stop being a liar.

AFAIK every single State licensing board has similar provisions.

Sure, sure. And in OR and DC, where there are LITERALLY NO RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION AT ANY STAGE OF GESTATION... how exactly does the licensing board provision apply?

 

[Emily Lake]

Now, when the standard of care is "Oregon does not restrict abortions based on gestational stage", what standard of care is being failed?

Reading comprehension Ems.

What standard of care is being failed?

The fact that they don't go with your to-the-day forbiddance doesn't reflect a lack of standards of care. It reflects that unlike you, they have given more than thirty seconds of thought to it before succumbing to emotional distress.

Emotionally laden rhetoric and name-calling is not a sufficient answer. It's a dodge.

 

[Elixir]

Do you believe that it's deficient in character for a doctor to perform a legal abortion late in gestation when the doctor believes it is a woman's right to have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason? Do you think it's incompetent for them to do so? Do you think it's fraudulent? Do you think they've engaged in deception?

I answerrd that question directly with two words.
HYPOTHETICALLY
and
YES.
Which word didn’t you understand?
Why keep asking, when you have yet to provide such straightforward answers?
Your lack of reading comprehension is lamentable. And your fixation on my opinions instead of the practical outcomes of my (and your) recommendations, reflects the emotional state driving your authoritarian needs. Glomming on to fantasy scenarios is another symptom, BTW.

WHERE’S THE DATA, EMILY?

 

[Elixir]

What standard of care is being failed?

Not for you or I to say.

How State Medical Boards Regulate Physicians after Licensing


The ongoing duty of a state medical board goes far beyond the licensing and ongoing registration of physicians. Boards also have the responsibility of determining when a physician’s professional conduct or ability to practice medicine warrants modification, suspension, or revocation of a license to practice medicine. Boards safeguard the public by disciplining physicians who engage in unprofessional, improper, or incompetent medical practice.


Boards review and investigate complaints and/or reports received from patients, other state medical boards, health professionals, government agencies and health care organizations about physicians who may be incompetent or acting unprofessionally, and take appropriate action against a physician’s license if the person is found to have violated the law. State laws require that boards ensure fairness and due process to any physician under investigation.

It is extremely unlikely that the abortion-happy quack of your fantasy is going to get away with it for long.

Board members devote much time and attention to overseeing the practice of physicians. When a board receives a complaint about a physician, the board has the power to investigate, hold hearings and impose discipline, including suspension, probation or revocation of a physician’s license, public reprimands, and fines.


While medical boards find it necessary to suspend or revoke licenses when appropriate, some problems can be resolved with additional education or training in appropriate areas. Boards may place restrictions on a physician’s license or put a physician on probation to protect the public while the physician receives special training or rehabilitation aimed at an existing issue.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm revising my approach, based on the most generous policies in a fair bit of Europe.

Here's my original proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, the doctor performing the procedure is required to document the conditions and risks involved, and their records may be subject to audit.

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

ETA: Be aware that the latest period for unrestricted abortions in Europe is 24 weeks.

And what if an audit finds a doctor not following those guidelines?

 

[Elixir]

Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

Sounds fine to me, with a couple of caveats.
* If you clear up whose judgment of “medically indicated” is required. If it’s not an IMMEDIATELY available entity, it is guaranteed to cause problems. Like, preventable deaths.

* In a 3rd trimester emergency with a second Doc not available, are you making exceptions to that signature requirement?

I assume State Boards would be the auditors, and audits would be after the fact, not something that could delay care, right?

 

[Elixir]

There are a whole lot of regulations out there that provide the guidelines within which something may be done, but don't actually directly interfere with the doing of those things.

Abortion is not one of those “things”.

 

[Elixir]

I'm revising my approach, based on the most generous policies in a fair bit of Europe.

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

I'm curious how this will stop a pair of doctors from wink wink, nudge nudge and terminate perfectly healthy fetus's at the very last moment. Also, who is the holder of the signed document of the two doctors?

Apparently Ems has figured out that if finding one corrupt doc is a 1:100 chance, then finding two in a row is 1:10,000. I guess that’s an acceptable level of risk, given that coat hangers are the corrupt patient’s alternative.
But prob’ly all those abortion-happy docs will gather under one roof and hang out a “no questions” shingle.

 

[laughing dog]

Why did you omit the text above that which referred to the physician’s best judgment?

In what way is "physician's best judgement" either materially different or more safeguarded than "physician's personal ethics"?

Responding to a question with a question is evasion.

Judgment extends beyond ethics to include professional expertise.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm revising my approach, based on the most generous policies in a fair bit of Europe.

Here's my original proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, the doctor performing the procedure is required to document the conditions and risks involved, and their records may be subject to audit.

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

ETA: Be aware that the latest period for unrestricted abortions in Europe is 24 weeks.

And what if an audit finds a doctor not following those guidelines?

Then they hunt down the woman and burn her at the stake!11!!!! 111!!!! OMG it's a travesty, and it's horrific!!!111

Seriously, what the hell do you think would happen? What happens to any doctor that doesn't follow regulatory guidelines? I would assume anything from a stern warning to fines to imprisonment, depending on how many instances and the degree of malfeasance.

Tell you what - how about you go as someone in the UK what happens to their doctors when they don't follow their regulations?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm revising my approach, based on the most generous policies in a fair bit of Europe.

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

I'm curious how this will stop a pair of doctors from wink wink, nudge nudge and terminate perfectly healthy fetus's at the very last moment. Also, who is the holder of the signed document of the two doctors?

It doesn't guarantee that wink-wink-nudge-nudge is impossible, but it does reduce the likelihood to a reasonable degree. Holder of the document is... wait for it... medical records!

It was a serious question. Why the attitude?

Shocking, I know, that doctors keep documentation for their procedures and interactions in their records. Whodathunkit?

So, your position is that this piece of paper is going to stop people from performing acts you feel are unethical? If it is kept in the medical records, why is there a need for a second doctor's signature? Isn't that increasing liability of the medical profession?

 

[Emily Lake]

Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

Sounds fine to me, with a couple of caveats.
* If you clear up whose judgment of “medically indicated” is required. If it’s not an IMMEDIATELY available entity, it is guaranteed to cause problems. Like, preventable deaths.

Holy hell, you act like this is an entirely new concept that hasn't been reiterated fifty times already. Who makes any determination of whether something is medically appropriate? Doctors or similarly licensed individuals.

For the rest of it, I'm sorry I used a shortened phrase instead of the lengthy bit that I'm tired of typing on, on the errant assumption that you'd be able to follow the context.

Medically indicated in this context means that the mother's life or health are identifiably at risk if the pregnancy is continued, or that the fetus has a condition that either materially increases the likelihood of fetal death prior to full term or is unlikely to thrive once delivered.

I really think that ought to be clear from context, given that I've held the same position and specified this same scenario multiple times, all in extremely similar language every time.

* In a 3rd trimester emergency with a second Doc not available, are you making exceptions to that signature requirement?

What sort of an emergency are you envisioning where a surgical abortion would be required, but in which there is only one doctor on staff? Seriously, have you ever been to an ER and been told "oh sorry, we only have one doctor tonight, you're going to have to wait for your life-saving stabilization"?

But hey, if you're super duper stuck on this, I'm perfectly willing to accept any licensed physician or surgeon with a relevant practice specialty. Given that third trimester abortions are invasive surgical procedures, I'm inclined to not extend that to nurses or physician assistants.

I assume State Boards would be the auditors, and audits would be after the fact, not something that could delay care, right?

Duh. You're the one who keeps foisting in this boogey man of delayed care, that has NEVER been suggested or indicated by any of my suggestions. And because this concept seems to be entirely obscure to you for some reason... audits occur after the fact. That's what audits are.

Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

Sounds fine to me

Just so we're clear... you have vociferously and stringently *rejected* my less restrictive proposal... all so you can turn around and *accept* my revision, which includes an *additional* hurdle.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are a whole lot of regulations out there that provide the guidelines within which something may be done, but don't actually directly interfere with the doing of those things.

Abortion is not one of those “things”.

But it should be.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm revising my approach, based on the most generous policies in a fair bit of Europe.

Here's my revised proposal:
Unrestricted abortions on request prior to the 27th week of gestation; at 27 weeks or later, abortions are restricted to medically indicated terminations when the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus has severe deleterious conditions. For third trimester abortions, signatures indicating agreement from two doctors are required to be included along with documentation of the conditions and risks involved. REcords may be subject to audit.

I'm curious how this will stop a pair of doctors from wink wink, nudge nudge and terminate perfectly healthy fetus's at the very last moment. Also, who is the holder of the signed document of the two doctors?

It doesn't guarantee that wink-wink-nudge-nudge is impossible, but it does reduce the likelihood to a reasonable degree. Holder of the document is... wait for it... medical records!

It was a serious question. Why the attitude?

Your "wink wink nudge nudge" sounds both unserious and baiting, so... why the attitude from you?

Sometimes I simply get tired of getting shat on by several people all at once, while also being expected to somehow maintain perfect decorum and persistently "be nice". When I am repeatedly treated in ways that are not remotely civil, at some point I stop being patient and tolerant of the abuse.

Shocking, I know, that doctors keep documentation for their procedures and interactions in their records. Whodathunkit?

So, your position is that this piece of paper is going to stop people from performing acts you feel are unethical? If it is kept in the medical records, why is there a need for a second doctor's signature? Isn't that increasing liability of the medical profession?

Yes, my position is that when documentation is required it reduces the opportunity for unethical behavior, and requiring a second party's agreement on the documentation reduces it even further.

This isn't a novel concept. It's why we require financial record keeping, documentation of prescriptions dispensed, stock intake records and inventory balanced against itemized sales, and any number of other instances where we require a "piece of paper" as proof that the regulations are followed.

And hey, it turns out that when you make more than one person accountable for adhering to regulations, it actually does reduce the likelihood of unethical behavior. It's unlikely that two independent actors would both behave unethically unless they're conspiring to do so... and most people don't do that.

 

[Elixir]

There are a whole lot of regulations out there that provide the guidelines within which something may be done, but don't actually directly interfere with the doing of those things.

Abortion is not one of those “things”.

But it should be.

Agreed.
And everyone SHOULD have a pony.
But reality doesn’t permit. Even given a surplus of ponies, trying to put 8 million of them into NYC isn’t a good idea.