I’ve watched it and posted it on Threads. He broke down. My comment to the egregious decisions that led to this young woman’s death were that it was a similar situation that the world watched play out in Northern Ireland where a sceptic, pregnant mother slowly died because, at the time, there was no way doctors could legally help her. It wasn’t long after that that they changed the laws so that such would never happen again. Maternal care is health care. I sincerely hope that women and the men who love them turn out in droves to turn out all who helped get us in this mess. It’s just too bad that the damned Supreme Court can’t be charged with every preventable murder that will arise from their god-awful decision.
Thank you for your responses on this tragic event. I hope there are discussions such as this going on in medical environments around the country. Non medical people (legislators) making medical procedures illegal for highly trained medical people makes little sense to me. This video was also powerful because Lawrence O'Donnell's mother had also had this procedure when he was a young boy. He obviously identified with the motherless child left behind by the inaction of the medical team. I'm sure no one involved with making this law wanted this to happen ... but it did and discussions like this will help us do better.
I'd say that Lawrence is not accurately describing the medical situation and conditions leading to the demise of Amber Thurman. Wouldn't mind debating him publicly on his presentation.
Regarding some of Lawrence's general claims:
IVF and D & C (which will Not be made illegal) actually both impinge upon the abortion controversy.
1) since IVF protocols usually involve destruction of 'excess' human embryos and
2) since under the most ideal study conditions, the abortion pill regimen requires D & C followup about 5% of the time.
This now occurs routinely and additional to all the unintended abortions (miscarriages) that are addressed in this manner at any hospital. D & C protocols at competent hospitals allow for emergent availability and administration of antibiotics in both of the above situations.
Failures of surgical, chemical, late term, and even initiated partial birth abortions are 'cleaned up' at hospitals regardless of affiliation, and I have been involved with such events over many years.
Given failure rate of the abortion pill regimen, which is higher IRL than in the ideal study conditions, (likely due to underdosing in large or obese patients), the government answer has been to give the regimen under telemed conditions, or by pharmacists, without adequate monitoring of the sequelae.
Traveling accross state lines has little added influence on the baked in failure rate of the chemical abortion regimens which have been in use for many years. (With current medical availability, most people don't see the same provider for 2 visits in a row.)
Many people are emoting that D & Cs will no longer be legal or will be hampered. The Georgia Life Act does not define a D & C after fetal demise as an abortion, and therefore all D & Cs continue to be allowed as they are everywhere else. Also, numerous abortion exceptions exist in in their Life Act.
I expect that people will modify their lives to adapt to the reduced availability of abortion, as well as unavailability of general health care as systems continue to fail.
The Board suggested that if the D&C had occurred sooner, the patient might have survived.
Some people seem to think that a law which does not impinge on D&Cs is a factor.
I gave numerous other possible reasons for a delay in treatment that seem much more plausible than a law which has nothing to do with restricting D&Cs.
By no means is a death deemed “preventable” by the board restricted to a single cause.
It would be good for people to become familiar with the internal mechanisms utilized by health care institutions to address preventable deaths, which happen fairly frequently as a result of short staffing issues and human error, in addition to negligence or incompetence.
Patients need visitors.
I expect ever more board activity as the systems continue to collapse.
So it sounds as if you have no direct knowledge of what happened, correct? But if the morbidity board, that no doubt turned this case inside out, but still decided that Amber’s death was preventable, then no such circumstances that you posit, existed. If that then was the case, the hospital has opened itself to a massive lawsuit. The GA law must not be as clear as you or anyone else may think if hospital staff did not act in a timely manner to save Amber’s life.
Are you a licensed health care provider in Georgia? Just curious since you seem to speak with some authority on this subject. Or are you a legislator who perhaps helped write the legislation in question? Since Amber’s death was preventable as deemed by the medical board that reviews all hospital deaths because of potential legal ramifications, why was her care team afraid to act to prevent her dying?
Not in Georgia and never a legislator, but their law is as clear as a bell allowing D & C after fetal demise. Perhaps it has been heavily misrepresented to those not taking the time to look it up and read it, which I did.
It was definitely not the actual Georgia law which delayed the D & C. Perhaps the staffing, availability of ob-gyn, the need to stabilize the septic and bleeding patient prior to operating, possible DIC or other complications not enumerated in publicly available information. Possibly this patient, who was in serious condition for "several days" before going to the hospital, came into a packed emergency dept. with 10 patients per nurse and insufficient physicians, or no immediately available operating room. These types of occurrences are common.
I would say that a gap of care also occurred at the clinic which "could not hold her spot for longer than 15 minutes", according to Newsweek, and which then recommended a medical abortion that failed, and followup seems to have been absent or insufficient.
🙃🙃🙃🤗🤗🤗🥰🥰🥰
I’ve watched it and posted it on Threads. He broke down. My comment to the egregious decisions that led to this young woman’s death were that it was a similar situation that the world watched play out in Northern Ireland where a sceptic, pregnant mother slowly died because, at the time, there was no way doctors could legally help her. It wasn’t long after that that they changed the laws so that such would never happen again. Maternal care is health care. I sincerely hope that women and the men who love them turn out in droves to turn out all who helped get us in this mess. It’s just too bad that the damned Supreme Court can’t be charged with every preventable murder that will arise from their god-awful decision.
Thank you for your responses on this tragic event. I hope there are discussions such as this going on in medical environments around the country. Non medical people (legislators) making medical procedures illegal for highly trained medical people makes little sense to me. This video was also powerful because Lawrence O'Donnell's mother had also had this procedure when he was a young boy. He obviously identified with the motherless child left behind by the inaction of the medical team. I'm sure no one involved with making this law wanted this to happen ... but it did and discussions like this will help us do better.
Given just the bare bones of the Newsweek report,
https://www.newsweek.com/amber-thurman-preventable-abortion-death-georgia-1954945
I'd say that Lawrence is not accurately describing the medical situation and conditions leading to the demise of Amber Thurman. Wouldn't mind debating him publicly on his presentation.
Regarding some of Lawrence's general claims:
IVF and D & C (which will Not be made illegal) actually both impinge upon the abortion controversy.
1) since IVF protocols usually involve destruction of 'excess' human embryos and
2) since under the most ideal study conditions, the abortion pill regimen requires D & C followup about 5% of the time.
This now occurs routinely and additional to all the unintended abortions (miscarriages) that are addressed in this manner at any hospital. D & C protocols at competent hospitals allow for emergent availability and administration of antibiotics in both of the above situations.
Failures of surgical, chemical, late term, and even initiated partial birth abortions are 'cleaned up' at hospitals regardless of affiliation, and I have been involved with such events over many years.
Given failure rate of the abortion pill regimen, which is higher IRL than in the ideal study conditions, (likely due to underdosing in large or obese patients), the government answer has been to give the regimen under telemed conditions, or by pharmacists, without adequate monitoring of the sequelae.
Traveling accross state lines has little added influence on the baked in failure rate of the chemical abortion regimens which have been in use for many years. (With current medical availability, most people don't see the same provider for 2 visits in a row.)
Many people are emoting that D & Cs will no longer be legal or will be hampered. The Georgia Life Act does not define a D & C after fetal demise as an abortion, and therefore all D & Cs continue to be allowed as they are everywhere else. Also, numerous abortion exceptions exist in in their Life Act.
I expect that people will modify their lives to adapt to the reduced availability of abortion, as well as unavailability of general health care as systems continue to fail.
The Board suggested that if the D&C had occurred sooner, the patient might have survived.
Some people seem to think that a law which does not impinge on D&Cs is a factor.
I gave numerous other possible reasons for a delay in treatment that seem much more plausible than a law which has nothing to do with restricting D&Cs.
By no means is a death deemed “preventable” by the board restricted to a single cause.
It would be good for people to become familiar with the internal mechanisms utilized by health care institutions to address preventable deaths, which happen fairly frequently as a result of short staffing issues and human error, in addition to negligence or incompetence.
Patients need visitors.
I expect ever more board activity as the systems continue to collapse.
So it sounds as if you have no direct knowledge of what happened, correct? But if the morbidity board, that no doubt turned this case inside out, but still decided that Amber’s death was preventable, then no such circumstances that you posit, existed. If that then was the case, the hospital has opened itself to a massive lawsuit. The GA law must not be as clear as you or anyone else may think if hospital staff did not act in a timely manner to save Amber’s life.
Are you a licensed health care provider in Georgia? Just curious since you seem to speak with some authority on this subject. Or are you a legislator who perhaps helped write the legislation in question? Since Amber’s death was preventable as deemed by the medical board that reviews all hospital deaths because of potential legal ramifications, why was her care team afraid to act to prevent her dying?
Worked a bigger facility than Piedmont Henry.
Not in Georgia and never a legislator, but their law is as clear as a bell allowing D & C after fetal demise. Perhaps it has been heavily misrepresented to those not taking the time to look it up and read it, which I did.
It was definitely not the actual Georgia law which delayed the D & C. Perhaps the staffing, availability of ob-gyn, the need to stabilize the septic and bleeding patient prior to operating, possible DIC or other complications not enumerated in publicly available information. Possibly this patient, who was in serious condition for "several days" before going to the hospital, came into a packed emergency dept. with 10 patients per nurse and insufficient physicians, or no immediately available operating room. These types of occurrences are common.
I would say that a gap of care also occurred at the clinic which "could not hold her spot for longer than 15 minutes", according to Newsweek, and which then recommended a medical abortion that failed, and followup seems to have been absent or insufficient.