• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

JasperL said:
Just a FYI - "I did it fine, and it turned out OK for me, so all others must be able to do the same thing with no problem" isn't actually a medically defensible position. It's why studies of anything have a sample size greater than one when at all possible.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the insurers who figured out that many just like being invalids for no reason and have capped how many days in a hospital a person is covered for. Most people seem to choose to stay way longer than needed given their condition, that's clear.
 
Summerwind said:
Tell that to the insurers who figured out that many just like being invalids for no reason and have capped how many days in a hospital a person is covered for. Most people seem to choose to stay way longer than needed given their condition, that's clear.
Click to expand...

Most people? What are you talking about based on what? Most women get 3 days after a vaginal birth and many want to leave at 2, just long enough to do follow up labs, breast feeding consults, etc. Most CS pts get up to 5 days and most leave within 4.

If there is ANY medical reason to stay, or even just doubt or apprehension they will get approved for more time-we can write up documentation for that to happen. And if there is NOT a reason, but the woman wants to stay we need to find out whats going on-this isn't a hotel and just being in the hospital has its risks for both baby and mother.

Believe it or not most women want to get back home and get on with life with the new arrival. And dads are probably the happiest to get out of the clinical environment (though they are my fav people to have breakfast with).

You continue to make stunningly ignorant and wide sweeping comments (that in themselves identify you dont know the issues) and then you provide not a speck of evidence to back your assertions.
 
Last edited:
Summerwind said:
Tell that to the insurers who figured out that many just like being invalids for no reason and have capped how many days in a hospital a person is covered for. Most people seem to choose to stay way longer than needed given their condition, that's clear.
Click to expand...

Well Dr. Summerwind (I assume it is Dr. Summerwind..), as you know when the insurers have reduced the number of days of hospitalization they'll reimburse, they've done so based on the results of hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases involving that particular kind of surgery.;)
 
JasperL said:
Well Dr. Summerwind (I assume it is Dr. Summerwind..), as you know when the insurers have reduced the number of days of hospitalization they'll reimburse, they've done so based on the results of hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases involving that particular kind of surgery.;)
Click to expand...

Shes actually a spin doctor. Not the cool kind...
 
This is REALLY ****ed up and ethically wrong. A patient ALWAYS has the right to refuse care, which is essentially what this is. Also, as medical professionals they have a responsibility to help out and treat a pregnant woman during labor if she comes to their hospital. This whole situation is just plain weird.
 
JasperL said:
Well Dr. Summerwind (I assume it is Dr. Summerwind..), as you know when the insurers have reduced the number of days of hospitalization they'll reimburse, they've done so based on the results of hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases involving that particular kind of surgery.;)
Click to expand...

Right because doctors overrule insurers, NOT! Get a clue. Secondly exactly what you finish with is exactly what I stated, people do not need the extended stays at hospitals that they WANT, hence insurers have dropped it dramatically for nearly every procedure.

You have a strange way of agreeing with my point.
 
Summerwind said:
Right because doctors overrule insurers, NOT! Get a clue. Secondly exactly what you finish with is exactly what I stated, people do not need the extended stays at hospitals that they WANT, hence insurers have dropped it dramatically for nearly every procedure.

You have a strange way of agreeing with my point.
Click to expand...

There is a working relationship between insurers and insurance. We know what the criteria are for coverage, and if something does not meet that criteria-clarification and talking with the company almost always gets approval. Its simply not an issue-the things you think are.

What people WANT, if not backed by a medical rationale is not and should not be a criteria for coverage. I see this in entitled patients who want a vacation in the hospital. Its actually stunning.
 
US Conservative said:
Thats nice in addition to being a medical lecturer, I have a medical license and practice medicine.
Click to expand...

Then you should know that a patient has every right to refuse care.
 
Your Star said:
Then you should know that a patient has every right to refuse care.
Click to expand...

As stated, that is simply incorrect. If you would like, I can elaborate and you might learn something. In the interim, ponder if you really can grasp medical ethics from an introductory powerpoint-which almost certainly (and apparently) did not touch on the actual issues.
 
Your Star said:
This is REALLY ****ed up and ethically wrong. A patient ALWAYS has the right to refuse care, which is essentially what this is. Also, as medical professionals they have a responsibility to help out and treat a pregnant woman during labor if she comes to their hospital. This whole situation is just plain weird.
Click to expand...

No one said she could not refuse care. The reason she lost her lawsuit is because she was trying to force the hospital to do it her way, and the hospital said they would not, she could go elsewhere to do it that way, which she did. To no one's great surprise, she ended up needing an emergency C section during the birth, but her and baby are fine. There is nothing wrong with a hospital stating they will not act in a way that is contrary to the recommendations of the relevant professional societies, and in this case they state that VBAC after more than 2 C Sections is contraindicated.
 
US Conservative said:
Shes actually a spin doctor. Not the cool kind...
Click to expand...


If what I type feels like spin and makes you dizzy, you may need to have your ears checked for buildup, because you're clearly balance impaired.
 
US Conservative said:
As stated, that is simply incorrect. If you would like, I can elaborate and you might learn something. In the interim, ponder if you really can grasp medical ethics from an introductory powerpoint-which almost certainly (and apparently) did not touch on the actual issues.
Click to expand...

This I gotta hear

Do go on.
 
sangha said:
This I gotta hear

Do go on.
Click to expand...

Certainly.

Those of certain legal status can not refuse care. Those who dont have power of attorney. Those who are gravely disabled. Those who are a danger to themselves or others. Those who represent a public health threat.

Do you think a hallucinating addict can refuse care? How about a person with ebola? What about a pregnant psych patient with HIV and every other STD refusing care for her pregnancy and comorbidities?

Beyond that, those who do not meet the above criteria but wish for unsafe care can request whatever they want-those who provide care have no legal responsibility comply, though there is a legal responsibility to refer to another practitioner (who has the same ability).

You need to remember that while practitioners have a desire to provide quality care and keep their patients satisfied-those patients are generally NOT familiar with medicine or the scientific process-and therefore there is a responsibility to help guide their decisions. People dont go to a mechanic, TELL them whats wrong, and then dictate what needs to be done-they CAN, but they might not like the result. The difference is here lives are at stake.
 
US Conservative said:
Certainly.

Those of certain legal status can not refuse care. Those who dont have power of attorney. Those who are gravely disabled. Those who are a danger to themselves or others. Those who represent a public health threat.

Do you think a hallucinating addict can refuse care? How about a person with ebola? What about a pregnant psych patient with HIV and every other STD refusing care for her pregnancy and comorbidities?
Click to expand...

As I suspected, you confuse people who are incapable of giving informed consent with those who refuse to give informed consent.

The closest example you gave is the patient with ebola and other threats to public health, but while they can be quarantined (if they pose a threat to public health), they can also refuse treatment.

Beyond that, those who do not meet the above criteria but wish for unsafe care can request whatever they want-those who provide care have no legal responsibility comply, though there is a legal responsibility to refer to another practitioner (who has the same ability).
Click to expand...

The courts *have* said that patients can't always force a doctor to perform a service (depends on the circumstances), but that's a different issue than a patient's right to refuse treatment (which they *always* have, even if they lack the ability to do so)
 
Summerwind said:
Right because doctors overrule insurers, NOT! Get a clue. Secondly exactly what you finish with is exactly what I stated, people do not need the extended stays at hospitals that they WANT, hence insurers have dropped it dramatically for nearly every procedure.

You have a strange way of agreeing with my point.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but what we know for sure is the experience of a single patient says little to nothing about how long a stay the typical patient needs in the hospital. And I'm sure the doctors on here will tell you that they can and do request and get additional days in the hospital for their patients, depending on how they did, what kind of support those patients might or might NOT have at home, their overall health before they were admitted, and more!
 
sangha said:
As I suspected, you confuse people who are incapable of giving informed consent with those who refuse to give informed consent.

The closest example you gave is the patient with ebola and other threats to public health, but while they can be quarantined (if they pose a threat to public health), they can also refuse treatment.



The courts *have* said that patients can't always force a doctor to perform a service (depends on the circumstances), but that's a different issue than a patient's right to refuse treatment (which they *always* have, even if they lack the ability to do so)
Click to expand...

How does a person in medical quarantine fit the description of incapable of informed consent? Can they refuse care? After you fail to answer that, tapdance around how the statement
"A patient ALWAYS has the right to refuse care"
Click to expand...
is factually incorrect.

A right that is powerless is not a right-I have just given examples of how ones rights can be refused. And an absolute statement has clearly been disproven. And by the way, a doctor can not be forced to provide care.
 
JasperL said:
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but what we know for sure is the experience of a single patient says little to nothing about how long a stay the typical patient needs in the hospital. And I'm sure the doctors on here will tell you that they can and do request and get additional days in the hospital for their patients, depending on how they did, what kind of support those patients might or might NOT have at home, their overall health before they were admitted, and more!
Click to expand...

Insurance seeks to reduce costs-so a patient discharged early (with medical necessity to actually stay) ends up costing much more-never mind the problems with patient and provider satisfaction that DO come back to insurance companies.
 
US Conservative said:
How does a person in medical quarantine fit the description of incapable of informed consent?
Click to expand...

They don't. Containment is a different issue than the refusal to grant informed consent

Can they refuse care? After you fail to answer that, tapdance around how the statement is factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

I already said that they can refuse care.

A right that is powerless is not a right-I have just given examples of how ones rights can be refused. And an absolute statement has clearly been disproven. And by the way, a doctor can not be forced to provide care.
Click to expand...

The right isn't powerless. It's protected by the law.

And you didn't give any example of people who refused to consent and whose right to refuse was ignored. You gave examples of people who were incapable of exercising their right to refuse to consent.
 
sangha said:
They don't. Containment is a different issue than the refusal to grant informed consent



I already said that they can refuse care.



The right isn't powerless. It's protected by the law.

And you didn't give any example of people who refused to consent and whose right to refuse was ignored. You gave examples of people who were incapable of exercising their right to refuse to consent.
Click to expand...

You are a time burglar so our conversation ends here.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I was born in one back in 1988
Click to expand...



"I'm not young enough to know everything" ;)

0728_oscar-wilde_390x220.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom