> As ‘fetal anesthesia’ does not exist in standard medical practice, the law does not specify how doctors are supposed to administer anesthesia or analgesic in

> As ‘fetal anesthesia’ does not exist in standard medical practice, the law does not specify how doctors are supposed to administer anesthesia or analgesic in these situations. Is it at all common in the first place for medical procedures to be codified in law? I was under the impression that laws tend to speak in very broad and general terms, and how to actually carry them out is left as an exercise for the licensing boards, or for the practitioners themselves to reach some kind of consensus on. Because that takes actual medical expertise, something legislators rarely have. And every time a procedure needs to be updated because of some new research or technological advancement, it would waste a lot of time on legislators debating the changes while the patients risk suffering or dying because they can't have the benefit of the updated procedure. And that's if the amendment is even deemed important enough to debate. I can't speak for the necessity of fetal anesthesia after week 20 since I don't have any medical knowledge, but those who are supposed to have it asking to be spoon-fed by legislators is not a good look, and sets a very dangerous precedent for the micromanagement of healthcare by politicians.