HEALTH vs. LIFE: Trying to clear things up

Healthy discussion going on over in the comments of my last post (person with fake emails and all caps not withstanding). But the core of the issue is the line between life and health and who gets to choose.

First off, let's talk about some different terms.

Technically, the term "Partial Birth Abortion" does not apply to any currently known and used medical procedure, as Maura stated in her comments. However, it is "assumed" that they are usually referring to the procedure known as a D&X.

D&X refers to a procedure called an Intact Dilation and Extraction. The benefits on this procedure are many, including the fact that having an intact fetus allows the family to view the remains if they choose. Remember, also, that this method is used often when a baby has already died. And, as Aurelia pointed out, "is quite often needed for babies with hydrocephalus or severe cranio-facial disabilities who cannot be delivered vaginally with their skull and brain intact."

According to this survey, this procedure is performed in 0.17% of all abortions. In other fucking words, HARDLY EVER.

D&E is a different procedure, a Dilation and Evacuation. This procedure is done between 12 and 20 weeks gestation. In this procedure, the fetus is usually, well, separated to allow for easier evacuation of the uterus. 11% of all abortions occur in the second trimester, according to the same study above.

I hope that clears up some confusion for folks about the terms.

Now, the problem with the ban is that the language is NOT CLEAR about which procedure is being banned. Part of the issue is the fact that there are many medical terms that fall into this category--this New York Times article refers to both "intact dilation and evacuations" AND "intact dilations and extractions". The line between the two procedures is very small--and doctors now face, as Maura mentioned, CRIMINAL prosecution for crossing that line--and sometimes they don't know what procedure a woman need until they've actually started the surgery.

Do you see the problem? They are taking a medical decision out of the hands of the people involved--the patient AND the doctor.

Personally, I do not know which procedure I had. At 22.5 weeks gestation (when my pregnancy ended--and that is based on my last menstrual period, remember, not the date of implantation, so the fetuses were really 20.5 week along) I was right on the line between trimesters. Plus the fact that there where two fetus (one barely alive, and one dead) could have impacted which surgery I had.

Other than having a medical termination, the options open to someone in my position are usually either a) emergency c-section, and b) induced delivery.

My doctor believed--given my particular circumstances--that it would be better for both my short term and long term health to not cut open my body if at all possible. My health was in a precarious state, and the option of a medical termination was the fastest, safest, and least complicated procedure to use. It also preserved the health of my uterus for future pregnancies.

Also, my doctor (you know, the man in the room with me, the one with a medical degree and my chart in hand? that guy) knew that inducing me, with my insanely high blood pressure, would be likely to cause me to have a stroke.

Please remember that even if my twins had both been alive, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED. Do not tell me they would have, because you are wrong. There have been NO DOCUMENTED CASES of babies born that early surviving--I don't care what pro-life websites you send me links to that say differently. THEY ARE LYING.

Trust me. Don't you think that I wanted those babies and would have done anything I could to save them? And don't you think that my doctor--who knew about my struggles to get pregnant and called the day of my surgery "the worst day of my professional career"--would have told me if that was possible?

Lastly, let's discuss, using me as an example, the difference between HEALTH and LIFE.

Where do you draw the line? Was my life actually at risk at the moment they chose to terminate the pregnancy? Well, my blood pressure was going higher and higher and they weren't able to get it under control with the medications they had available. My kidneys has begun to shut down and I'd stopped producing urine. But I was alive. I could have remained alive, possibly, under those circumstances for a while. Maybe they could have pushed it until I actually began to have seizures. Or maybe until I had a stroke. Or, maybe, since even after a stroke and having seizures I would have still been alive, maybe they would have to wait until after I felt into a coma. But wait! If I'm in a coma, I'm still alive, right? Even if my brain has been irreparably damaged, I'm still ALIVE. Right?

So, my point is, sure-- the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" has a provision for the LIFE of the mother. But there is NO PROVISION FOR HER HEALTH. Or the health of her uterus, or her future children.

To sum it all up, if I hadn't had the procedure that I had, Nicholas, Zachary, me AND Tori would all be dead.

Got it?

Comments

[wealhtheow]

Thanks for the clarification, Cecily.

[The Aitch]

Got it.

In fact, personally, it makes me SICK that you even have to defend yourself. Let alone keep having to explain your personal tragedy over and over again just so people will see a different point of view. And maybe ingest something other than their own misguided, under-knowledged (is that a word?) beliefs.

Who knew you would be used as such an educational tool. Now, if people would only LEARN from you, one womans story, we would all be in a better place.

P.S. I love you woman and you know this!

[Cat, Galloping]

That last point is exactly the thing I was thinking about last night. It's not as though it was even an option to trade your life for the fetus' life-- you would have ALL died, so then what's been accomplished?

Damn.

I'm sorry you're still having to explain and defend yourself on this.

[KidKate]

Got it.

And thanks for speaking out, Cecily. I know it can't be easy in this very public forum.

[Mary]

You are a brave woman for what you have been through, and for continuing to discuss it today.

Whatever one's personal opinion is on any type of termination, I don't feel the government should have ANY say over it. Period. Leave medical decisions to women and their doctors, not our idiot president. It's bad enough our fucking health insurance companies have so much say in what is deemed 'necessary.' Now we have to fight our own elected government about it?? IDIOTS!!!

And you are absolutely right, Cec. Twenty two weekers don't make it. Period. They just don't.

[ccw]

Very well said.

[Sarah]

OH, I've been checking and checking for this.
THANK YOU. You explain things so clearly.
I am totally linking to you all over the fucking place. Or quoting you. Or just stealing what you wrote. ;-)
xo

[Beth]

I was 23 weeks pregnant when the baby I was carrying died. I had a D&E - which was what my doctor recommended. It is terrifying to me that if that were to happen again I would have no option but to be induced and deliver a dead baby or wait to see if I spontaneously aborted. That was bad enough for me, I can't imagine how awful it must have been for you. Thank God that procedure was available to save your life. Unfortunately, it looks like others might not be so lucky.

[car]

I am so sorry that you have to keep explaining it. I'm sorry that people can't understand without it being slapped in their faces. It has to be so draining to keep having to fight it all the time.

I will say thank you so much for doing it. I used to be a fundamentalist, and was pretty ignorant on all things related to pregnancy problems. I've since done a 180 on most of my views, abortion included, and most of that has had to do more with education than just viewpoint. It was hearing stories like yours that made me realize there are situations I never dreamed of, that the world isn't as easy as I would have liked it to be, that anyone who claims there is "never" a reason to do something is someone who hasn't been exposed to reality.

I've been furious for over a day about all this, and it actually made me modify my class lectures to include covering the reasons these things sometimes need done (not too much of a stretch, it's a class on the evolution of reproduction, but I didn't cover it last semester). It may be raging against the wind, but hopefully at least one or two people will start to understand.

[melissa]

Hi. I recently found your blog and have been obsessively working my way through your archives; late last night, sitting on my couch in the dark, I got to the horrible stretch in late 2004 when you had a prior discussion (and the most obnoxious commenter I've EVER read) on this topic. I'm sorry -- on so many levels and for so many reasons -- that this discussion is necessary again. This country, this court, this government...I just want to cry, or rage, or scream. Thank you for your writing. I really appreciate it.

[JuliaKB]

So sorry you have to keep explaining this. So sorry.

[Catherine]

I read the Supreme Court's decision and the law itself defines what it means by partial-birth abortion. There isn't really room for any confusion.

Nonetheless...my doctor should be making medical treatment decisions...with my consent (or my family's if I am incapacitated)...nobody else. I don't care WHAT procedure we're talking about.

[Shazamama]

Amazing post.

I want to send this to every person I know who thinks women have "partial birth abortions" because they are selfish or lazy or just plain old immoral. There's more for me to chew on than any article I've read in the NYT on the subject. I think it would make a great letter to the Times, in fact, and every other major paper.

People need to move away from the rhetoric and hear what it is really all about.

[thrice]

During the D&X procedure, a woman's cervix does not fully dilate, her fetus' head gets stuck upon delivery and her fetus' brain needs to be suctioned out of its skull so the head can fit through the partially dilated cervix. This pro-life picture at the following link, illustrates the point. http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=25422

[Melessa]

Got it and AMEN! I thought you would be pleased to read that very restrictive bill regarding abortions was actually vetoed by the governor here in the state of Oklahoma. I was never prouder of any political figure in my life than I was of him yesterday. Even though he is a Democrat, this is still Oklahoma (the buckle of the Bible belt) and what he did took guts. With all that you're going through here right now, I thought you might appreciate reading this. If you already knew about it-then I'm sorry for the repeated info.

[jackie]

Why the hell do you have to justify what happened to you! Did you know 5 of the people who voted on this are catholic?

Jackie

[A Vistor]

Consider the following scenario. You are stranded on a desert island with four others. You have enough food to last a week. A rescue ship will be arriving in two weeks. If you kill one, or maybe two, of the others, at least three of you will survive. If you don't, all of you will die.

Is it then permissible to kill?

[Katie W]

I feel so sick that your government has seen fit to do this, and other politicians have allowed it to happen. Everything about this stupid law is just so fucking wrong. I'm not usually one for writing about political issues on my own blog, but this has made me so angry that I felt I had to.

[bluepaintred]

i too had some confusion between the two options. i still think that the doctors need to ahve a sya in this not the polititions, and most importantly the human being carrying the child/children.

[Lisa]

The sad part about this whole debate is that we're even forced to have it. In a free country, women should have the ability to make the choices that are best for them, with the advice and counsel of only their doctors and partners -- not strangers, and not lawmakers.

[bluepaintred]

** A Vistor ** - providing the four people on the island are relitivly healthy, they can either choose to spread the food makingit last the two weeks or go hungry for a week. providing that their is water, they will not die of starvation in one week.

what am i saying? oh yea. your anology has no bearin gon this post.

[Jess]

There is no need to defend yourself, it's a total waste of time. Whether or not your twins could have survived is not the question and really noone's business. Your health should come first, bottom line. Cutting you open to take them out? As if that would make a difference? That's ridiculous.

[jennifer]

I fail to understand how anyone can be so blind as to not see the medical necessity of your situation. I am a Jehovah's Witness and as anti-abortion as a person can be, and I get it. You had two options: terminate right now or die. Either way, your son would not survive. There is no moral virtue here in your dying pointlessly. In fact, it would be contrary to Christian principles for you to in effect commit suicide. It's one thing to give your life to save someone else, but in your case no one would have benefitted from your death. And I would miss you too, which may sound odd given the gigantic differences in our beliefs and world views. But it's true.

[A Visitor]

Bluepaintred:

I meant just enough food for survival, like one cup of rice per day. But even then, you're probably right. So let's make the rescue ship three weeks out. Or four. You get the idea.

Now will you answer the question?

[Noelle]

Cecily,

You are an amazing woman and amazing writer. Thanks for your words and your point of view...