Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
There was a comment from an MD on one of the Savita threads which basically said that not aborting was clearly medical malpractice, and the foetus was clearly the cause of the fatal septicemia.

So 'well, duh' would be entirely fair and accurate.

Certainly it's difficult to imagine any doctor without religious bias saying 'It's true you have a dead foetus inside you, but let's just leave it there and see if your condition improves, eh?'

It's true that Savita might have died anyway. But it's surely obvious that the odds of death would have been very greatly reduced to the point where it was very unlikely she would die - as opposed to the medical inaction which made it far more likely she would die.

So far as I can tell, medicine doesn't offer certainties.

But the reality is that any unbiased medical facility would have treated the situation as a medical emergency and aborted immediately, knowing this would tilt the balance of probability away from likely death to likely survival, and that this was a valuable and ethical thing to do.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Nov 21st, 2012 at 08:41:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series