More than half the 112 anti-Trump protesters arrested in Portland didn't even vote Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3938928/More-ha

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Oh, I am sure they are informed rightly enough. But more eager to "get it over with" than with considering the aftermath, I'd also imagine. And no amount of information can overcome someone's regret after the fact. I am sure that happens as well.

Had a friend's daughter recently who took a baby to full term, knowing it wasn't going to be viable. She opted for that over abortion because of the increased chance of the baby's organs saving other lives. A VERY brave decision, in my opinion. She held the baby for a bit after he was born, then let them take him from her and do what they needed to. Having a baby who is a love can obviously extend the life of the organs. Again, a decision that was hard on the family. I think her dad was pretty much angainst it at first. But in the end, it was her choice, and her sacrifice and gift to give.

Yes they harvest. Yes they charge for it. Yes sometimes harvesting will require "prolonging" support in an effort to maintain viability (for tissue not really, but organs yes). I don't know to what extent that happens with abortions but defintiely if an infant is going to be carried to term, but will not survive, but parents agree to organ donation, then the child may need to be kept alive long enough to coordinate proper harvesting and to avoid damage to the organs. They won't do that without the parents knowledge or consent though. Honestly that happens incredibly rarely as well (I've never personally been involved in a case). Yes/No on whether they make a profit because I really don't know either way. They aren't supposed to is all I know. If individual locations are manipulating it for a profit then of course those should be investigated, punished and closed if necessary. I don't believe there is a "systemic" issue with the organization as a whole however. No investigation has shown that there is as of yet.

As for whether the consent is truly "informed" consent. They are legally required to obtain informed consent by explaining to the woman what they will be doing etc... Does that mean the woman will really understand what she is hearing? No. It can't just be a piece of paper with no one actually talking about it. It can't just be a "Sign here, here and here" and without mentioning it one signature agrees to donation. It has to be informed consent which requires a discussion and opportunity to ask questions. Even with that though, people may not be truly "informed", but that is an issue in all aspects of medicine not just tissue donation. Does a lay person with little medication knowledge ever really acquire truly informed consent for any medical procedure? We do our best. I try to always have the person sort of "talk back" to me what they understand which is a good indicator of whether they took in the information. No technique is perfect though.

[yuna628 9,676]

I believe I also read about some other organs being harvested and grown to full size outside the womb. Once perfected (if?) this should go a long ways towards organ availability.

And on your other post... I wasn't arguing about the profit part. Of course, they cannot profit from it, though it was alleged they were doing so. (Perhaps due to the high salaries of the higher folks who work there?) But in another discussion, I mentioned using funds from harvesting baby parts going towards the cost of abortions for those who cannot afford them. And I was boo-hoo'ed because PP doesn't harvest baby parts. Nuh-uh, can't happen. Well, I disagree. I believe it DOES happen.

And as for the consent part, never argued that point, either. But do you really think a woman who is lying on her bed, about to abort the baby within, she really cares about what she is signing? I suspect she just wants to get it over. I am fairly certain if I didn't want a baby, I wouldn't care what they did with the remains after they were out of me. But maybe I am insensitive.

I would try to work on that sensitivity some more. Things aren't so black and white okay? Look, as a woman if I ever chose to abort, I absolutely would care. In fact, if I knew any part of the fetus could help someone else, I would absolutely do my part to help. Both me and my husband are organ donors (he just became one today in fact), and I certainly take the possibility of it seriously. Just because you wouldn't, doesn't mean all women feel that way. I feel we have a moral responsibility in regard to organ or tissue donation.

[bcking 3,157]

Oh, I am sure they are informed rightly enough. But more eager to "get it over with" than with considering the aftermath, I'd also imagine. And no amount of information can overcome someone's regret after the fact. I am sure that happens as well.

Had a friend's daughter recently who took a baby to full term, knowing it wasn't going to be viable. She opted for that over abortion because of the increased chance of the baby's organs saving other lives. A VERY brave decision, in my opinion. She held the baby for a bit after he was born, then let them take him from her and do what they needed to. Having a baby who is a love can obviously extend the life of the organs. Again, a decision that was hard on the family. I think her dad was pretty much angainst it at first. But in the end, it was her choice, and her sacrifice and gift to give.

Very difficult thing for anyone to have to go through, and a very brave decision for her to make.

There will always be the question of whether "informed" consent is truly "informed". People may not listen, they may be distracted, they may nod their head and what to get it over with. It is a difficult question to ask in those cirucmstances - If you think the person is only signing just to "end" the discussion, should you let them sign? Part of proper informed consent involves laying out the benefits/negatives of consenting to it, and making clear that they don't have to consent. In my experience if someone just wants me gone, but doesn't truly want what I am "consenting", when I tell them that it is an option they usually will hear that part and say "then I don't want it" or something. If it isn't an option, then you aren't really "consenting" them, you are technically obtaining "assent". Though legally speaking I'm pretty sure we tend to document consent anyway (for example when dealing in the Pediatric population you don't actually need consent from parents to perform a life saving procedure on the child, however we obtain consent as a matter of respect. If the parent refused consent, and it was truly life saving and an emergency we can proceed anyway. If it is life saving and not an emergency we have to go through the proper channels to get approved and as long as it isn't wacko it usually will be. That doesn't come up very often though, and we try to avoid having it come up as much as possible. It's the sure fire way to lose any therapeutic alliance you may have with parents).

[smilesammich 10,727]

..why does a woman making such a decision need someone else to determine if she is truly informed or not?

[bcking 3,157]

..why does a woman making such a decision need someone else to determine if she is truly informed or not?

Well technically if you are an adult you can "waive" your right to informed consent if you really want...you do have the right to say "I don't want to know anything, I will consent to anything you want to do". I've never seen it happen, but you do have that right.

It's just that with any medical procedure we obtain consent from the patient, and we generally need it to be informed because you can't truly consent to something if you don't know what you are consenting to (which is why children can't consent to things generally). We do it to protect the rights of the patient. They have a right to know what is being done to them, and by extension to the products of conception/fetus/neonate etc... You either see it as a part of the woman, or you see it as a living thing that is dependent on the woman. Either way it can't consent itself, so the mother/woman must consent. Of course if you see it as a "living thing" then that creates the major political issue since it would technically violate "Non-maleficence" which is part of our oath as a doctor (Though the hippocratic oath is not a "legally binding" oath). Most medical professionals don't consider the fetus living (at the very least until it is of the age of viability) and it is therefore part of the woman and you need informed consent to use it. With term infants who are born but have a fatal disease it's a little different since you aren't "terminating", you are merely "redirecting care" (the preferred way of talking about it) and not supporting the infant artificially and allowing it to pass.

Edited November 17, 2016 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

Well technically if you are an adult you can "waive" your right to informed consent if you really want...you do have the right to say "I don't want to know anything, I will consent to anything you want to do". I've never seen it happen, but you do have that right.

It's just that with any medical procedure we obtain consent from the patient, and we generally need it to be informed because you can't truly consent to something if you don't know what you are consenting to (which is why children can't consent to things generally). We do it to protect the rights of the patient. They have a right to know what is being done to them, and by extension to the products of conception/fetus/neonate etc... You either see it as a part of the woman, or you see it as a living thing that is dependent on the woman. Either way it can't consent itself, so the mother/woman must consent. Of course if you see it as a "living thing" then that creates the major political issue since it would technically violate "Non-maleficence" which is part of our oath as a doctor (Though the hippocratic oath is not a "legally binding" oath). Most medical professionals don't consider the fetus living (at the very least until it is of the age of viability) and it is therefore part of the woman and you need informed consent to use it. With term infants who are born but have a fatal disease it's a little different since you aren't "terminating", you are merely "redirecting care" (the preferred way of talking about it) and not supporting the infant artificially and allowing it to pass.

right, but what lfehfn is saying, or what it sounds like, is that he doesn't trust a woman to make an informed decision without some outside party determining if she's telling the truth or capable of being informed. as in, she may say she is making an informed decision, but lfehfn wants further proof she isn't just saying that (which is impossible) in order to get her birth control fix.

[bcking 3,157]

right, but what lfehfn is saying, or what it sounds like, is that he doesn't trust a woman to make an informed decision without some outside party determining if she's telling the truth or capable of being informed. as in, she may say she is making an informed decision, but lfehfn wants further proof she isn't just saying that (which is impossible) in order to get her birth control fix.

In fairness I think he has a valid point. I think his point was just that a person (male or female) when making a serious emotional decision on short notice may make a decision that they regret later. So while they may give "informed consent" at the time, their ability to obtain information and make a reasonable decision may be impaired given the circumstances. That is valid. Maybe he did mean what you said, but I guess I am innocent and give people the benefit of the doubt.

While I would never make it a requirement, I think of all the "restrictions" placed on abortions in different states the mandatory waiting period is probably the least offensive. Still I don't think it should be mandatory, but if I were a doctor offering a woman an abortion I would at least recommend/suggest to her to give it a day or two after discussing it with me. I wouldn't require her. If she had already spent a week thinking about it and had no doubt in her mind then fine. But I would at least mention it and say that it is a serious and big decision and that if she needs time, she should take time.

That is fair less offensive than the laws like a clinic can't be close to a school, or a clinic has to have hallways of a certain width. Those are just silly.

EDIT: In the NICU when we discuss redirecting/withdrawing care, we don't bring it up, decide and do it all in a day. It is a process, and at any step people can change their minds. I don't think it is unreasonable to apply a similar idea to an abortion. It can be a very significant decision for someone.

Edited November 17, 2016 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

I think his point was just that a person (male or female) when making a serious emotional decision on short notice may make a decision that they regret later. So while they may give "informed consent" at the time, their ability to obtain information and make a reasonable decision may be impaired given the circumstances.

this. i don't see where this is any different than any other life threatening/major medical decision. and yet with this particular decision, somehow, women can't be trusted to make it.

[Rob L 3,811]

Oh, I am sure they are informed rightly enough. But more eager to "get it over with" than with considering the aftermath, I'd also imagine. And no amount of information can overcome someone's regret after the fact. I am sure that happens as well.

Had a friend's daughter recently who took a baby to full term, knowing it wasn't going to be viable. She opted for that over abortion because of the increased chance of the baby's organs saving other lives. A VERY brave decision, in my opinion. She held the baby for a bit after he was born, then let them take him from her and do what they needed to. Having a baby who is a love can obviously extend the life of the organs. Again, a decision that was hard on the family. I think her dad was pretty much angainst it at first. But in the end, it was her choice, and her sacrifice and gift to give.

I have more ethical concerns over the decision to bring a life to full term for the purposes of harvesting those organs for the lives of others than I do over a first trimester abortion, but maybe that is me.

[Merle 458]

Wow, this thread took a turn down a strange path.

[yuna628 9,676]

Wow, this thread took a turn down a strange path.

They always do...

Should I ask for it to be split into the other abortion thread again?

[bcking 3,157]

this. i don't see where this is any different than any other life threatening/major medical decision. and yet with this particular decision, somehow, women can't be trusted to make it.

Well I agree. As I said, any decision that is serious and significant I think when possible should be given time to consider it. This applies to men and women.

The ethical issues of carrying to term and then harvesting is tricky. They are typically cases that are completely unviable, but with generally normally functioning organs (Anencephaly). It is tough because you normally have to then keep the infant alive initially, and then withdraw that support later. Very tough decision for all involved, but it does happen.

Sorry we have been very off topic. Not sure how this happened. Probably my fault.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I think you misunderstand me. I meant that if I didn't want the kid, and was willing to abort it, then I wouldn't care if they took it to use it for science or to help someone else. IOW, I would not say NO to them wanting to use it, provided I didn't want the child myself. I guess there may be some who would say no for some reason, but to me, that would be selfish, though still a choice of the woman aborting.

I, too, have been an organ donor, ever since I was legal to be one. I would MUCH rather someone get use out of some part of me after the whole was no longer working. If I could save 5 lives with 5 viable organs, I cannot imagine a much better service to humanity.

Where did you get the impression that "I wouldn't"???

I would try to work on that sensitivity some more. Things aren't so black and white okay? Look, as a woman if I ever chose to abort, I absolutely would care. In fact, if I knew any part of the fetus could help someone else, I would absolutely do my part to help. Both me and my husband are organ donors (he just became one today in fact), and I certainly take the possibility of it seriously. Just because you wouldn't, doesn't mean all women feel that way. I feel we have a moral responsibility in regard to organ or tissue donation.

Edited November 17, 2016 by LFEHFN

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Never said she did.

..why does a woman making such a decision need someone else to determine if she is truly informed or not?

[Ban Hammer 13,343]