Monday, November 17, 2008

First installment

We have a pro-choice president. But there are still people who are anti-choice. I know what their arguments are and try very hard to listen and take to heart their point of view. I know that some don't believe me, not that it matters. But now that we have a pro-choice president, the anti-choice movement is up in arms. They're afraid: that FOCA will get passed, that we'll get "radical" judges, etc. and they're planning on a bigger push to make abortion illegal. That's their right of free speech of course (remember, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU!) and I always enjoy hearing arguments and debating the issue. But abortion WAS once illegal. And a lot of women, on both sides of the issue, seem to have forgotten the past, and why so many people pushed for legal abortions - to help women and save women's lives. So I thought that I'd publish this experience from a doctor who dealt with illegal abortions in the past. If nothing else, it will help pro-choice women remember WHY we support reproductive rights, and maybe it will help anti-choice people (or anti-abortion people, as there is a difference in my mind) figure out how they can be anti-abortion, get rid of legal abortion, AND save women. I hope that makes sense. I'm hoping to add more of these first-hand experiences, that's why I titled it "first installment." Also, a toast to Dr. Fielding. I think you're a hero for sharing your experiences.

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe
by Waldo L. Fielding, M.D.

With the Supreme Court becoming more conservative, many people who support women’s right to choose an abortion fear that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that gave them that right, is in danger of being swept aside.

When such fears arise, we often hear about the pre-Roe “bad old days.” Yet there are few physicians today who can relate to them from personal experience. I can.

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure, done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

The patient also did not explain why she had attempted the abortion, and we did not ask. This was a decision she made for herself, and the reasons were hers alone. Yet this much was clear: The woman had put herself at total risk, and literally did not know whether she would live or die.

This, too, was clear: Her desperate need to terminate a pregnancy was the driving force behind the selection of any method available.

The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.

We did not have ultrasound, CT scans or any of the now accepted radiology techniques. The woman was placed under anesthesia, and as we removed the metal piece we held our breath, because we could not tell whether the hanger had gone through the uterus into the abdominal cavity. Fortunately, in the cases I saw, it had not.

However, not simply coat hangers were used.

Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.

Another method that I did not encounter, but heard about from colleagues in other hospitals, was a soap solution forced through the cervical canal with a syringe. This could cause almost immediate death if a bubble in the solution entered a blood vessel and was transported to the heart.

The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

Waldo L. Fielding was an obstetrician and gynecologist in Boston for 38 years. He is the author of “Pregnancy: The Best State of the Union” (Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971).

15 comments:

Mimi said...

You know, I can totally understand the basic reasons someone has for being against abortion. It is an ugly thing, and I am not exactly for it myself, though I think it should be legal.

I also think it is important to remind people why it was fought for so hard to make it legal. But I don't think it would automatically go back to the way it was if abortion were once again made illegal. Women have better access to birth control and there is less of a stigma on women who are pregnant and unmarried.

Of course one way to assure that never happened again is to provide women with even better access to quality health care and birth control, and not to try and restrict it even more. If women were better able to contol when, how, and if they start a family then the need for abortion would reduce. I think that (reducing the number of abortions) is something both sides would agree on.

Kathleen said...

Oh, I agree. I wouldn't say I'm for it - in the same way I'm for feeding poor people - but I'm a supporter of the right. I don't know if it automatically would go back to the way it was. I'm sure these cases would happen again, though hopefully with a lot less frequency. But I also support better access to birth control and a lot of antichoice people are against it on the grounds that women (and men) shouldn't have sex if they don't want to get pregnant (like the Catholic church) or just don't want people having sex outside marriage, which would make pregnant and single more of a stigma, and therefore they're against birth control as well.
And I think reducing the number of abortions IS a thing people can agree on, but the way to go about it is very different for the two sides. Plus, I don't LIKE abortion, but I also don't find it WRONG, per se. So I don't really like the idea of condemning women for that choice either, which is something many people who are anti-choice do. I mean, look at the priest in which Carolina was it - who basically told people that if they even voted for Obama they might want to go to confession and repent. And that's just a vote for someone pro-choice. Imagine if you were Catholic and pro-choice- you'd be condemned doubly.

Kathleen said...

Also, just to clarify - I don't want to use this as a scare tactic either - cause I hate that about people...ooohh, if this happens then this bad thing will happen. For example, terrorism and the Bush Doctrine etc. So I'm not necessarily saying this will automatically happen if Roe is overturned or something - just that it's something to consider.

Mimi said...

Yet didn't something like 54% of Catholics vote for Obama?

I also don't like for a woman to automatically be condemned if she had an abortion. It is a very personal choice and until you are in that woman's shoes you can't really judge her. But I think it is just a vocal minority who doe that.

Like I said, I can understand someone being against abortion. But I still don't understand the fight against restricting access to birth control, and allowing pharmacists or doctors to decide whether they will dispense it or not. Wouldn't abortion be the greater wrong here? Shouldn't someone who is against it do all they can to prevent more abortions instead of preventing access to one of the things that could ensure that? I realize that some in their religions don't abide by the use of birth control or pre-marital sex, but that is their personal choice. I can respect that, but they also need to respect the personal choices of others.

Kathleen said...

I don't think they see it that way - as respecting the choices of others. I don't want to sound anti-religion here, but lately it seems that today religions don't care about respecting others. Not all, of course, but it seems to be a growing trend.

KU Mommy said...

Respecting someone doesn't mean you agree with or support every choice they make. Respecting someone also doesn't mean you're always nice to them. Sometimes loving someone and respecting them means supporting only the things that you know are good for them.

I wouldn't support a friend who wanted to cut on herself even if it made her happy, because I know, in the long run, that is something that is going to hurt her.

Kathleen said...

There's a difference between respecting an opinion and dangerous behavior. I respect your opinion on abortion Kristi, but I don't agree with it. I didn't say you have to agree, just respect that others have different opinions. The problem is that your opinion allows for no respect for others, because it's black and white, at least for this issue. There's nothing wrong with that, except that many people who have black and white opinions (and there are few things in life, if any, that are truly black and white issues)want people to live by their opinions.

Mimi said...

And the two aren't really comparable. Cutting is the symptom of a serious disorder, not a political/religious issue on which someone would form an opinion. A person doesn't cut themself because it makes them happy, they do it to release emotional pain by causing physical pain.

Kathleen said...

Thanks for jumping in Ramee, I swear, you put things into words that I either forget or can't find and I appreciate it. And another thing - respect means you DO support their decisions, to the best of your ability...because it is their decision. For example, let's just talk about parenting here - now I don't necessarily support many parenting ways. I disagree with using leashes for example, or even religious issues with regard to parenting. But I fully respect your opinion and support your right to have that opinion and to parent the way you see fit. Just because I don't agree with or support your particular parenting style (and by your I mean a general population of parents) but I DO respect and support your right as a parent to choose a style you feel is best. Even if I think it's idiotic or something.
Also, by saying that you support only the things that are good for someone you love implies that you know better than them what is best for them. In some cases, this might be true. But saying you know what is best for a fully grown person, capable of reasoning things through and making decisions based on their own morals and feelings and knowledge of their life well, that just makes me angry, I guess. And is, some other word I can't think of right now, but presumptuous and contemptuous of other people comes to mind.
I think you're free to tell a friend you don't agree with or support their actions, but that's because you're their friend and you love them. But a good friend doesn't then abandon said friend because of their actions, at least I hope not. I am sure there are good examples of times it's better to step away from a friendship. But I don't think a difference in opinion, even one regarding something like abortion, is one.

KU Mommy said...

Of course you don't abandon a friend no matter their decision on a matter. I never suggested that. You support them no matter what they decide, but it's not a reflection on your respect for them if you express to them that you'd rather they not do something that you feel could hurt them in the long run. (And, obviously, my "long run" means even the afterlife) so I am coming from a slightly different paradigm in this particular case.

Kathleen said...

Well, that was my point, I guess. Because you implied that you DON'T support a friend's decision if you don't agree with it. Or maybe I just read your comment incorrectly? And you're right - respecting a friend DOES mean you can express concerns - whatever concerns you have. Respect just means that if they listen and then decide something else, you're still their friend. I mean, I'm thinking we agree based on your last comment; but the one before that is now confusing me. At any rate - yes, you support their decision, even if you tell them your concerns. Naturally, I think respect goes both ways - hopefully the friend would listen to your concerns as well.
And yes, you are concerned about the afterlife, if there is one. But that sort of goes into my point - not everyone believes in sin, or an afterlife. And if you're their friend, you have to respect their beliefs on that as well, and that kind of thing can go into decision-making.

KU Mommy said...

I think our opinions are slightly different... and I think I'm not making myself clear so that would explain why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Let me try again.

I think you can support the friend WITHOUT supporting their decision. You can be there for your friend without agreeing with the choice they make. You can help them through the pain they may end up inflicting on themselves but you can still be honest enough to let them know that you don't agree with what they're doing.

I think that's real friendship.

Example: I had a friend in college who chose to do something that both she and I would have thought was pretty immoral only a few years back. She knew I still thought it was a good idea when she decided to engage in this activity and she even said to me "I don't expect you to support this decision, but just don't hate me."

I told her that I could never hate her no matter what she did, but I also wasn't going to be all gung ho about the decision she made either. And she completely understood. And we're still awesome friends today.

Kathleen said...

Okay, now see. That's what I mean. I think it was just your wording in the first comment you made. Thanks for the clarification by the way.

Anonymous said...

Well, I didnt read your article, but I dont understand why, if it's so legal and safe, women still die from abortions. Why women who have an ectopic pregnancy and go in for an abortion generally die due to no one checking to make sure the baby's in the uterus. (God forbid an ultrasound be done, dont want the woman to see that it's really a baby.) Why are there people out there giving abortions without a medical degree? Why isnt it as regulated as it should be? Why cant PP be prosecuted for giving underage girls abortions without their parents' permission? Why should underage girls be able to do it without parental permission? Nora couldnt have her tonsils removed without my permission, yet some people want her to be able to get an abortion without it?

I'm totally pro-choice: before conception. There are way too many birth control methods out there for abortions to be necessary. You've got your liberal president (I say as if I didnt vote for him....hee) get more sex ed out there, not more abortions. Fight the cause, not the consequence. More abortions arent the answer.

Sara

Kathleen said...

Sara,
There are lots of things that are both legal and safe - and yet people still die. There's always a risk. You can die from getting your tonsils taken out - it's just rare. But statistically speaking, abortions are safer than pregnancy and childbirth, especially for teenagers!
And the parental consent - most girls WILL include their parents and you have to ask 1) why would you think it would be better for them to have it legally mandated - what are the risks if they're ordered to do so and they can't go to their parents? and 2) There are other medical things girls can do without parental permission - get treatment for STDs, get birth control, go in for exams, - in this area, I think what makes me leery of parental consent is reason #1 - I think if they have a supportive environment, girls will tell their parents and 2) there are not many parents who will let their religious beliefs guide their decision over a tonsillectomy. What makes a teenager BETTER prepared to be a mother, but NOT prepared to make a choice regarding abortion - to have or not to? And why should a teenage girl be subject to her parents choices regarding her reproductive health (because it's not her parents!), which carries weightier issues than a tonsillectomy?
I think in this day and age it's far too easy to see children, not as individuals, whom parents have to guide to adulthood, and therefore have to let go of gradually- and the decisions that come with it, needing the ability to think things through, etc. - but as little extensions of themselves. And I think that's dangerous - for the kids and for society. And while I am not in favor of parental consent laws, I understand that people are against that. But if I had a daughter and for whatever reason she felt she couldn't come to me and ask for my help, then knowing she'd be able to be safe would be my main concern, and I'd hope that I had taught her well enough to make a good decision and was strong enough to let her go.
And I agree with you about the birth control and comprehensive sex education - that's one reason I'm pro-choice. Because organizations that are pro-choice aren't pro-abortion - they want women to know all they can about sexual health which includes birth control.