thishereboi
Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Ladies and Gentlemen
In a nut shell, the person has no clue about the reproductive system nor about the complications of each problem that was listed.
quote:
Remove the fallopian tube. The intent is to remove the diseased/damaged tissue, not kill the child, thus not an abortion.
An ectopic pregnancy is not a diseased or damaged tissue. It doesnt have to be within the Fallopian tube itself. All ectopic means is that it is located outside the uterus. But we will stick with the tube itself for now. Many have been found because the pregnancy is discovered and a routine ultrasound does not locate the fetus within the uterus. Once it IS located within the fallopian tube, it is then adviced to be removed, even though the fetus has a heart beat and no damage has yet occured.
Medical
Early treatment of an ectopic pregnancy with methotrexate is a viable alternative to surgical treatment[22] since at least 1993.[23] If administered early in the pregnancy, methotrexate terminates the growth of the developing embryo; this may cause an abortion, or the tissue may then be either resorbed by the woman's body or pass with a menstrual period. Contraindications include liver, kidney, or blood disease, as well as an ectopic mass > 3.5 cm.
[edit]
Surgical
If hemorrhage has already occurred, surgical intervention may be necessary. However, whether to pursue surgical intervention is an often difficult decision in a stable patient with minimal evidence of blood clot on ultrasound.[citation needed]
Surgeons use laparoscopy or laparotomy to gain access to the pelvis and can either incise the affected Fallopian and remove only the pregnancy (salpingostomy) or remove the affected tube with the pregnancy (salpingectomy). The first successful surgery for an ectopic pregnancy was performed by Robert Lawson Tait in 1883.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy#Treatment
Both medical and surgical are considered an abortion.
quote:
quote:
Placenta Previa in some cases
Deliver the child early. If the child dies, at least you tried to give it a shot.
A partial separation of the placenta is dangerous for both mother and child, depending on the degree of separation. Again, you do not speak with a great deal of knowledge on this issue.
quote:
quote:
Even Pregnancy Induced Hypertension can result in the necessity.
Again, deliver the child early. You don't have to intentionally kill the child in order to remove it from the mother's body
Again, your lack of knowledge is showing.
The only known treatments for eclampsia or advancing pre-eclampsia are abortion or delivery, either by labor induction or Caesarean section.
Just trying to deliver a baby to such a mother can kill her. Not in all cases, that determination is best left to the physician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-eclampsia#Complications
But, of course, since you are a trained physician and can make these determinations yourself, I would love to see your research on these issues, the results of the outcomes of the cases you have handled and the various teaching hospitals you have given lectures. Because, obviously, you know so much more than the current literature and standards of care are recommending.
She said she didn't see why trying to deliver the baby wasn't an option. You called her an idiot (no not in those words, but it was implied) and then post your findings which state "The only known treatments for eclampsia or advancing pre-eclampsia are abortion or delivery, either by labor induction or Caesarean section."
Not sure what point you are trying to prove here?
_____________________________
"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert
This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi
|
RE: Republican "Let The Woman Die" bill movin... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread