(November 1, 2016 at 1:41 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:(November 1, 2016 at 12:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I guess my point is, the state doesn't typically let mentally incapacitated people make other serious decisions about their life and health (DNR's, DNI's, ect.) so why should an abortion be different?
Suicidal ideation is not the same as something like schizophrenia (with an uncle who was schizophrenic, I've a vague idea of how bad that is), and while an abortion won't get rid of the underlying medical problems the sufferer is under, the fact that the event that is causing the person to contemplate and plan a suicide event is a big help in giving the medical authorities the space and time to be able to deal with the underlying issues and hopefully cure the problem.
It's no different ethically than giving a pregnant woman chemotherapy that would kill the foetus to cure her cancer.
I see your point. But, I think ethically speaking, there wouldn't be any reason not to at least attempt treatment first if her physician recommends it, and the woman consents to that particular plan of care. Some anti-depressants/anti-anxiety meds are safe to use during pregnancy where appropriate, depending on the patient's symptoms and underlying condition.
Honestly, I can imagine scenarios where abortion is the safest, most appropriate clinical decision, as well as scenarios where taking a shot at treatment first is a better option. Either way, I agree with you 100% that such decisions should be between a woman and her clinician. NOT the government.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
