If ya have to ask…maybe you shouldn’t?
Again, this is not my personal belief, but that of the company. I personally believe that there should be some regulation, but not so much that it stifles success and productivity, just enough so that it keeps doctors on their toes.
In regards to enclampsia, it can be treated with magnesium sulfate:
If the pregnancy is at 37 weeks or later, the healthcare provider will usually want to deliver the fetus to treat preeclampsia and avoid further complications.
"If the pregnancy is at less than 37 weeks, however, the woman and her healthcare provider may consider treatment options that give the fetus more time to develop, depending on how severe the condition is. A healthcare provider may consider the following options:
If the preeclampsia is mild, it may be possible to wait to deliver. To help prevent further complications, the healthcare provider may ask the woman to go on bed rest to try to lower blood pressure and increase blood flow to the placenta. Close monitoring of the woman and her fetus will be needed. Tests for the mother might include blood and urine tests to see if the preeclampsia is progressing, such as tests to assess platelet counts, liver enzymes, kidney function, and urinary protein levels. Tests for the fetus might include ultrasound, heart rate monitoring, assessment of fetal growth, and amniotic fluid assessment. Anticonvulsive medication, such as magnesium sulfate, might be used to prevent a seizure. In some cases, such as with severe preeclampsia, the woman will be admitted to the hospital so she can be monitored closely and continuously. Treatment in the hospital might include intravenous medication to control blood pressure and prevent seizures or other complications, as well as steroid injections to help speed up the development of the fetus's lungs."
Why would I? That doctor isn’t likely to end up being in the ER where I would be subjected to such treatment in the first place and it isn’t like there aren’t already plenty of other doctors in that same ER perfectly capable of also treating me. This line of argument is almost as asinine as your last one about immigration being “ad hoc” to the discussion. Happy to help. 
1 Like
I’m talking about the principle. I’m well aware that the laws don’t respect Natives.
Interesting point. On the way to the hospital for the birth of my daughter, I told my wife…" Look if it goes bad, and I have to decide, you or her ( our daughter) They will save you. We are already a family. Our son needs his mom. Our family isn’t a family with out you. I have wrestled with this for months and this is where I stand. If you feel differently tell me now". Thru her tears she told me that it was the only way shed have it.
My point…no one can tell you how to decide things, until you are there and faced with it. That is why I said earlier. A law like this in essence forces us to give our children over to the state at birth. As A parent I no longer have the right to decide what’s best for my minor child’s health. The State has tied my hands. That’s not proper!
2 Likes
I don’t see why not.
I was being sarcastic. The two aren’t remotely related and it appears to be a large calculated grasp at straws, and kind of confuses the issue
Showing deference to religious objections are the relating issue.
No, I respectfully disagree. The issue is legal not religious.
It’s blatantly both.
If you really want to know my position…the government should compensate the tribes for the land they lost. Some of the rules don’t apply to Natives, but here in Oklahoma, where the reservations once were, the five major tribes have their own laws, and some of the laws apply differently to them. For example, they don’t have to pay taxes on their vehicles when they get or renew their license plates. It might be the same where the pipeline was or is built. I’m not familiar with the issue at all, so it’s probably best I just take a general stance on this and leave it at that.
Eclampsia can most definitely not always and even effectively be treated with magnesium.
You don’t know what ad hoc is, do you?
They don’t want compensation they don’t want the pipeline.
Doctors performing abortions are compensated for their work.
If it is severe and the baby is far along enough, it can be solved by early delivery. If the baby is not as far along, steroid hormones (known as corticosteroids) are given to speed up the development of the lungs so the baby can be viable outside the womb, and the mother is put in the hospital for closer observation. All of this is in the article I posted.
Not to mention enclampsia can also start post-partum, according to the article. Thus, aborting the fetus might not stop the onset of the condition.
Last fall my daughter ended up in an ER of a small town hospital, and there was literally one doctor working the ER. I’m not saying they couldn’t have summoned another doctor, but it always comes down to the fact that in many small towns or rural areas there is only one provider.
I’m lucky like you in that we live in an area with “plenty of other doctors available” but that’s not a luxury for many people in this country.
I guess then it’s too bad. Even with citizens, the government will offer a sum of money for building in your backyard, and if you refuse, they can condemn your land so it won’t sell at all.
I don’t see what your point on the second sentence is? Of course they are compensated. Probably privately.
1 Like
Forced sterilization is a big government slippery slope we do NOT want to start.
Amazing people are actually advocating for/supporting it here.
In true eclampsia, the only definitive treatment is delivery/abortion. I don’t care what your article says.
Where is the “too bad” for those refusing abortion services? Why do Native religions objections not matter and Christian religious objections do?
The point is that you all don’t take compensation as a valid solution when it comes to abortion, but y’all do when it comes to DAP.
