4 ms·

It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues).

lelanthran 4y ago
> It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). Since this is so highly voted, maybe also note that the key is "before term", which is not the case as far as I can tell in the article. Not that I don't find the practice repugnant, but let's not steer off into outright FUD when blasting our moral outrage.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  37 weeks is "before term" for inducement, in at least 2 of these patients. "Normal" induction (i.e. absent specific reasoning) is at 39 weeks or beyond. So some outrage is, in fact, justified.
  - devilbunny 4y ago
    We also don't have any medical history on these patients. Maybe it's policy, maybe they just heard it that way. It's a risk/benefit ratio; if the mother hits certain criteria for pregnancy-induced hypertension or (worse) preeclampsia, the only definitive therapy is delivery. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there's not enough information to be sure.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      Certainly. But what we do also know is all three women in this article consented to the release of their medical records, and the newspaper's review of those records did not find any condition warranting induction. And while journalistic failures of fact-checking, even egregious ones, have occurred, this is one that could be so easily verified with even the most cursory look. It doesn't require an obstetrician or physician, hell, an EMT with less than 200 hours of medical education is taught that, as you say, one of the biggest risks in late term pregnancy is preeclampsia. Even a quick Google search would say as much. Given that this is the core of the story, it would take Herculean amounts of Wikipedia-esque "Assume Good Faith" with respect to the Arizona DOC having concerns that warranted these interventions that could be discovered with less than a minute of review of their medical records. Also vile, that the women were then billed for the cost of their inductions, despite them being in custody. Arizona seems to want it both ways (which is unsurprising, given that they have a pretty horrific history in such things - until last year, prisoners in active delivery were still required to be handcuffed to beds and still kept in shackles, through birth itself) - you're a ward of the state (which generally _doesn't_ remove medical autonomy), so we'll make your medical decisions, and then we'll bill you for our choices.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

lelanthran 4y ago

> It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). Since this is so highly voted, maybe also note that the key is "before term", which is not the case as far as I can tell in the article. Not that I don't find the practice repugnant, but let's not steer off into outright FUD when blasting our moral outrage.

FireBeyond 4y ago
37 weeks is "before term" for inducement, in at least 2 of these patients. "Normal" induction (i.e. absent specific reasoning) is at 39 weeks or beyond. So some outrage is, in fact, justified.
- devilbunny 4y ago
  We also don't have any medical history on these patients. Maybe it's policy, maybe they just heard it that way. It's a risk/benefit ratio; if the mother hits certain criteria for pregnancy-induced hypertension or (worse) preeclampsia, the only definitive therapy is delivery. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there's not enough information to be sure.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    Certainly. But what we do also know is all three women in this article consented to the release of their medical records, and the newspaper's review of those records did not find any condition warranting induction. And while journalistic failures of fact-checking, even egregious ones, have occurred, this is one that could be so easily verified with even the most cursory look. It doesn't require an obstetrician or physician, hell, an EMT with less than 200 hours of medical education is taught that, as you say, one of the biggest risks in late term pregnancy is preeclampsia. Even a quick Google search would say as much. Given that this is the core of the story, it would take Herculean amounts of Wikipedia-esque "Assume Good Faith" with respect to the Arizona DOC having concerns that warranted these interventions that could be discovered with less than a minute of review of their medical records. Also vile, that the women were then billed for the cost of their inductions, despite them being in custody. Arizona seems to want it both ways (which is unsurprising, given that they have a pretty horrific history in such things - until last year, prisoners in active delivery were still required to be handcuffed to beds and still kept in shackles, through birth itself) - you're a ward of the state (which generally _doesn't_ remove medical autonomy), so we'll make your medical decisions, and then we'll bill you for our choices.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]