NEJM argues against recent abortion ruling.
Yesterday The New England Journal of Medicine published three op-eds online outlining concerns regarding the recent Supreme Court decision covering late-term abortions.
First, The Intimidation of American Physicians — Banning Partial-Birth Abortion by
Michael F. Greene, M.D. (associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and director of obstetrics at Massachusetts General Hospital). Dr Green reminds us:
No aspect of medicine seems to attract as much popular and political attention as reproductive medicine. In recent years, our government has restricted women's options for preventing conception and now for coping with pregnancies that threaten their health or are simply unplanned and undesired. Both health care providers and patients should be alarmed by the current degree of intrusion by our government into the practice of medicine and even more so by the apparent trajectory that it seems poised to follow in the near future.
Second, Government in Medicine, Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. Dr. Drazen puts it succintly:
It is not that physicians do not want oversight and open discussion of delicate matters but, rather, that we want these discussions to occur among informed and knowledgeable people who are acting in the best interests of a specific patient. Government regulation has no place in this process.
And lastly, The Partial Death of Abortion Rights, R. Alta Charo, J.D. (professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison). Mr Charo outlines concerns about medical necessity, the future of abortion laws, and legal problems doctors may now face:
And thus the balance of interests shifts, with women's health no longer paramount but rather societal morality and the state's interest in life even before the point of viability outside the womb.
Too bad all those big words and advanced ideas won't be read or understood by the anti-elite of the Bush Administration.
