Dr. Kermit Gosnell Baby Slayer

[MrJonno]

No. "Passive euthanasia" - letting the baby die of starvation or thirst - is not legal in the U.S. That's an artifact of the UK health single payer health care system.

Actually active euthanasia is allowed in some US states and withdrawing treatment where it is no longer considered beneficial to allow the patient die is not only legal in every country on Earth but actually a Hippocratic requirement. The withdrawal of food if it is considered not to cause suffering is legal in both the US and UK (and I assume everywhere else).

I'm against euthanasia on anti-libertarian grounds not on any other, makes it too easy for the vulnerable to be pressured into dying (fighting over grannies will is a national sport in any 1st world country)

[Coito ergo sum]

No. "Passive euthanasia" - letting the baby die of starvation or thirst - is not legal in the U.S. That's an artifact of the UK health single payer health care system.

Actually active euthanasia is allowed in some US states and withdrawing treatment where it is no longer considered beneficial to allow the patient die is not only legal in every country on Earth but actually a Hippocratic requirement. The withdrawal of food if it is considered not to cause suffering is legal in both the US and UK (and I assume everywhere else).

I'm against euthanasia on anti-libertarian grounds not on any other, makes it too easy for the vulnerable to be pressured into dying (fighting over grannies will is a national sport in any 1st world country)

No, not euthenasia. Such withdrawal of treatment must be done via consent. If a person does not have a living will or advance medical directive, then they will be given the medical treatment and food. You are wrong about US law on this.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's not forget that in the civilized countries in the world - you know, the western European countries who are civilized -- they too have limits on abortions at around 20 or 21 weeks. So, abortions at the date range Gosnell was convicted for wold also be illegal in civilized countries like the UK.

Na abortion up to birth in the UK if the baby/foetus has a serious handicap (not defined) or threatens the life of the woman, in fact passive euthanasia is allowed after birth in these cases too (ie the baby is given no treatment apart from perhaps pain relief). Through that law does need tightening up somewhat

Dude - that's the law in the US too, including Pennsylvania. But, there are limits.

No. "Passive euthanasia" - letting the baby die of starvation or thirst - is not legal in the U.S. That's an artifact of the UK health single payer health care system.

Granted, Obamacare has put us on that road.

I meant that abortion up to birth is allowed in the US if there is a threat to the life of the mother. I didn't mean the euthenasia part.

There's always a way that these flippin' Europeans have a better law than in the US. In the US, we're supposedly forcing women to get dirty abortions because we don't allow abortions. Then when it's pointed out that we don't have any greater restrictions than we have in the UK, they come up with some reason like "well...the actual written law says X or Y, but in reality anybody can get anything anytime..." -- it's like, to Euros -- whatever is done in Europe is sensible. So, if it's done in Europe it's sensible and civilized, and if not, then it's not. QED.

[Coito ergo sum]

When authorities raided Dr Gosnell’s clinic in 2010, they found it filthy and stinking of urine. Foetuses were stored in bottles, instruments were unsterilised; there was blood on the floor, and even a flea-infested cat. The under-regulated facility served mostly underprivileged women who sought cheap, late-term abortions.

Sounds like we should cut all funding to abortions, Planned Parenthood etc. That way we would cut the huge baby shortage of the country that leaves all kinds of white couples without babies.

You honestly think this was a funding issue?

I think it's a funding issue. Planned Parenthood has been getting more funding from government in return for deemphasizing abortions in favor of generalized women's health care. As a result, there is no longer any efficient way to help fund abortions for the poor, and people like Dr. Gosnell step in instead.

Abortion doesn't cost much, and those that can't afford $500 for an abortion, can certainly get aid and assistance to pay for it.

Dr. Gosnell wasn't offering any particular "service" or benefit to women who couldn't afford stuff. Any woman who could pay him could also pay someone else.

And, what Gosnell did would not be any different if done by someone else. He was aborting fetuses that were viable. If that's done at the Mayo Clinic, they're still poisoning it in the womb or if it's born and gasping, they still have to snip the spine. It's horrid no matter how sanitary the environment.

The solution is to ensure that abortions are either not necessary or done early.

[Animavore]

Let's not forget that in the civilized countries in the world - you know, the western European countries who are civilized -- they too have limits on abortions at around 20 or 21 weeks. So, abortions at the date range Gosnell was convicted for wold also be illegal in civilized countries like the UK.

Na abortion up to birth in the UK if the baby/foetus has a serious handicap (not defined) or threatens the life of the woman, in fact passive euthanasia is allowed after birth in these cases too (ie the baby is given no treatment apart from perhaps pain relief). Through that law does need tightening up somewhat

Dude - that's the law in the US too, including Pennsylvania. But, there are limits.

No. "Passive euthanasia" - letting the baby die of starvation or thirst - is not legal in the U.S. That's an artifact of the UK health single payer health care system.

Granted, Obamacare has put us on that road.

I meant that abortion up to birth is allowed in the US if there is a threat to the life of the mother. I didn't mean the euthenasia part.

There's always a way that these flippin' Europeans have a better law than in the US. In the US, we're supposedly forcing women to get dirty abortions because we don't allow abortions. Then when it's pointed out that we don't have any greater restrictions than we have in the UK, they come up with some reason like "well...the actual written law says X or Y, but in reality anybody can get anything anytime..." -- it's like, to Euros -- whatever is done in Europe is sensible. So, if it's done in Europe it's sensible and civilized, and if not, then it's not. QED.

I love the way these 'Merkins keep treating Europe like it's a country.

[Coito ergo sum]

I love the way these 'Merkins keep treating Europe like it's a country.

I'm not treating it like it's a country. I'm describing the way the Europeans act on this forum sometimes. If it's European, it's "civilized." Any downsides in Europe, any negatives, are perfectly reasonable and understandable. If it's done in a European country, there's a good reason for it, and it's the way a civilized country ought to be. If it's more freedom, then of course, only the fascist US would object to a European measure bolstering freedom. If it is a restriction on freedoms, then of course, only the rabid libertarian US would object to a reasonable and rational restriction on people's words or behaviors -- after all, any civilized country would do what's done there.

And, part of the reason some people may refer to Europe like it's a country is because Europe is slowly morphing into a country. You're moving towards a federal Europe as it is, and eventually it will be a single country, with member states, like the US. And, you folks often play a shell game where you compare yourself continentally in one context, but then demand to be treated as separate entities in another context.

[klr]

Back on topic ...

Don't the women have a case to answer as well, or am I missing something?

[MrJonno]

I meant that abortion up to birth is allowed in the US if there is a threat to the life of the mother. I didn't mean the euthenasia part.

I was refering to abortion being allowed up to birth in the case of serious handicap when serious handicap isnt defined, I think this is actually wrong (the poorly defined bit, if the foetus is going to be born a complete vegetable is one thing but its occurred (rarely) with a cleft palate)

As for withdrawing food/water according to http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10. ... 162.6.1-00
it can occur with relatives consent (and I would hope doctors consent) if the patient is incapable of granting it

Legally withdrawing treatment is considered differently to actively hastening death but whether there is really a moral difference it up for discussion
There is also you can pump a patient full of drugs speeding up their death if you are primary trying to relieve pain.

The reality is doctors fudge it every day and rely on courts assuming they are working on best intentions unless proved otherwise.

Regarding abortion at 24 weeks, its Dutch medical policy to recommend no treatment of any baby born at 24 weeks, while in British hospitals it taken on a case by case basis.
The survival rate for a baby born at 24 weeks is 1% and 99% of them will be either complete vegetables or close to it. if treated the baby is going to suffer extremely for a long period with a very very slim chance of any quality of life

[Animavore]

I love the way these 'Merkins keep treating Europe like it's a country.

I'm not treating it like it's a country. I'm describing the way the Europeans act on this forum sometimes. If it's European, it's "civilized." Any downsides in Europe, any negatives, are perfectly reasonable and understandable. If it's done in a European country, there's a good reason for it, and it's the way a civilized country ought to be. If it's more freedom, then of course, only the fascist US would object to a European measure bolstering freedom. If it is a restriction on freedoms, then of course, only the rabid libertarian US would object to a reasonable and rational restriction on people's words or behaviors -- after all, any civilized country would do what's done there.

And, part of the reason some people may refer to Europe like it's a country is because Europe is slowly morphing into a country. You're moving towards a federal Europe as it is, and eventually it will be a single country, with member states, like the US. And, you folks often play a shell game where you compare yourself continentally in one context, but then demand to be treated as separate entities in another context.

Absolute waffle based on preconceived notions and confirmation bias. I don't see many similarities between European countires or sensibilites, attitudes or behaviours. Most of us don't even like each other.

[JimC]

Back on topic ...

Don't the women have a case to answer as well, or am I missing something?

If they were under anaesthetic, probably not...

[klr]

Back on topic ...

Don't the women have a case to answer as well, or am I missing something?

If they were under anaesthetic, probably not...

But they went to his clinic looking for late-term abortions, if I understand the case correctly.

[JimC]

Back on topic ...

Don't the women have a case to answer as well, or am I missing something?

If they were under anaesthetic, probably not...

But they went to his clinic looking for late-term abortions, if I understand the case correctly.

If they hadn't signed anything, a smart lawyer could argue that they went there for, lets say, investigative surgery...

[klr]

A smart lawyer might indeed argue that, but getting a jury to believe it would be another matter altogether.

[Warren Dew]

Abortion doesn't cost much, and those that can't afford $500 for an abortion, can certainly get aid and assistance to pay for it.

Dr. Gosnell wasn't offering any particular "service" or benefit to women who couldn't afford stuff. Any woman who could pay him could also pay someone else.

Gosnell was cutting corners on a lot of things, like dumping fetuses in the trash. I think it's likely that reputable providers were unable to provide the services at a market clearing price in the area he was in.

[Seth]

Back on topic ...

Don't the women have a case to answer as well, or am I missing something?

You mean the women seeking abortions?

No. Gosnell lied to many of them about the age of their babies, frequently telling them they were 21 weeks or less when they were more than 24 weeks and in some cases 30 weeks. It may be that some of the mothers knew better, but it was Gosnell who performed the abortions and who told the women it was legal to do so.