Pregnant Teenager Nevaeh Crain Died After Trying to Get Care in Three Visits to Texas Emergency Rooms

[essentialsaltes]

Why? It is totally appropriate to this thread.

I'm not sure what you want. The Biden Administration argued the Supremacy Clause and lost in court (up to this point).

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'm not sure what you want. The Biden Administration argued the Supremacy Clause and lost in court (up to this point).

Can you post the article talking about that please?

 

[DaisyDay]

Doesn't seen so since 119 women had abortion treatments to save their lives and no one was prosecuted for it. I guess it can be figured out.

Was there a fetal "heartbeat" in each of those 119? How close to death were the women in these cases?

 

[rjs330]

I've made my position clear. So have you. I think I'm done with this thread. It's the doctors problem. They screwed up instead of following the law or their medical oath. The law is clear and tells doctors to save tge mothers life. They didn't do it. Bye. V

 

[RileyG]

I've made my position clear. So have you. I think I'm done with this thread. It's the doctors problem. They screwed up instead of following the law or their medical oath. The law is clear and tells doctors to save tge mothers life. They didn't do it. Bye. V

QFTW

 

[essentialsaltes]

QFTW

If they broke the law, why are they not indicted by the state of Texas?

 

[RileyG]

If they broke the law, why are they not indicted by the state of Texas?

poorly written laws (they weren't clear), perhaps? or the doctor didn't do his job?

I'm no lawyer, I don't know.

 

[RDKirk]

Just another total failure of the medical profession. I'm not a doctor, but I know good and well that sepsis is a life threatening issue. She might have died anyway due to the sepsis. But there was a chance she could have been saved. Apparently there was NO REASON not to address this immediately. The first time she was there they MISDIAGNOSED her. The second time there was NO REASON to withhold care. This again is a MEDICAL profession failure.

While they were not certain from looking at the records provided that Crain’s death could have been prevented, they said it may have been possible to save both the teenager and her fetus if she had been admitted earlier for close monitoring and continuous treatment.

There was a chance Crain could have remained pregnant, they said. If she had needed an early delivery, the hospital was well-equipped to care for a baby on the edge of viability. In another scenario, if the infection had gone too far, ending the pregnancy might have been necessary to save Crain.

It may be necessary for doctors here in Texas to stop being cowards and do what the early Civil Rights activists had to do: Break the law and force the state to test the law in court. Back in the 1950s, those courts were also hostile.

I suspect in situations like this, the state would decline to prosecute.

 

[RDKirk]

Personally, I believe that Roe v Wade should have been left alone and pro life preached in the church. What I question is how tragedy is being reported and interpreted in the media. There are pro life organizations who seem to have some credible information that counter the narrative.

That is a different question: Regardless what the state does or doesn't do, how should the Church go about saving the lives of babies using "Holy Spirit authorized" methods? "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal."

 

[RDKirk]

poorly written laws (they weren't clear), perhaps? or the doctor didn't do his job?

I'm no lawyer, I don't know.

The courts are the designated check for that problem. That's where the lawyers come in.

 

[rjs330]

It may be necessary for doctors here in Texas to stop being cowards and do what the early Civil Rights activists had to do: Break the law and force the state to test the law in court. Back in the 1950s, those courts were also hostile.

I suspect in situations like this, the state would decline to prosecute.

Only they wouldn't be breaking the law. Based upon the law this is an obvious emergency exception.

 

[RDKirk]

Only they wouldn't be breaking the law. Based upon the law this is an obvious emergency exception.

That's why I said that in situations like this, I doubt they would be prosecuted.

But my point is that they'd need to stop being abject cowards willing to let a woman die because they were afraid to take any risk at all, even if it was only their perception of a risk.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Only they wouldn't be breaking the law. Based upon the law this is an obvious emergency exception.

If you're asserting they did break the law by not treating the women who died, why are they not being charged?

 

[RDKirk]

If you're asserting they did break the law by not treating the women who died, why are they not being charged?

They aren't saying they refused to treat the woman, only that it didn't appear she needed emergency care at the moment, and when it did become clear she needed medical care, it was too late. Medical shizzle happens, and they just shrug.

 

[RileyG]

The courts are the designated check for that problem. That's where the lawyers come in.

Ok. So yes, things must change.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.

Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise,” a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care.

By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were “blue and dusky.” Her organs began failing.

Hours later, she was dead.

--

There is a federal law to prevent emergency room doctors from withholding lifesaving care.

No state has done more to fight this interpretation than Texas, which has warned doctors that its abortion ban supersedes the administration’s guidance on federal law, and that they can face up to 99 years in prison for violating it.

--

Currently, the courts have blocked the federal government from asserting federal law is supreme over state law.

I think it is important to note that this event happened over a year ago. I assume that any confusion would have been cleared up by now.

 

[RileyG]

I think it is important to note that this event happened over a year ago. I assume that any confusion would have been cleared up by now.

Thank for clarifying.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The "net positive"/"net negative", countervailing interest rationale (that's part of any prudent policy making) seems to go right out the window with regards to politically charged topics like this.

That becomes extremely evident when people put a spotlight and magnifying glass on each and every outlier incident that occurs to prove a point. (usually aimed at engaging in emotional manipulation and subversion). Rather than simply keeping the conversation confined to the merits (or lack of merits) of the policy itself.

Typically, you only try to manipulate and trick people when you know your argument isn't solid on its own.


If we weren't talking about abortions and laws that prevent ones in certain circumstances, and instead were discussing vaccine mandates... Would the "highlight every allergic reaction outlier" approach be seen as a good faith argument approach to discussing it? Or would it be dismissed as "anti-vaxxers trying to appeal to emotion and attempting to use the exception to negate the rule"?

Or if you want a completely apolitical example... seatbelts.

Per the CDC and the NHTSA
Last year, seatbelts saved 16,000 lives, and another 3500 that would've been prevented had the occupant been wearing one, in additional to preventing 80,000 serious injuries.

Flipside, for the same time window, there were 27 cases of a person getting trapped in a burning car by their seatbelt, and another 43 that got trapped by their seatbelt in a car that was immersed underwater.


If we were having a debate about new mandatory seatbelt laws, and I went out of my way to do an extensive emotional-charged write-up thread about each and every one of the 70 people who got killed by their seatbelt....
"They say Tanya was likely conscience while under water for minutes before finally succumbing and drowning"
and
"Witnesses say they could hear the child screaming in the car, but the child was unable to escape from the car due to the jammed seatbelt while the parents helplessly stood by crying and pleading"

What would the reaction to that be? Would anyone be buying that? Or would people say "c'mon dude, you just don't like wearing seatbelts and you're trying to manipulate everyone... seatbelts are an overwhelming net positive"

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Remember when the right’s rhetoric against Obamacare was it would lead to “death panels” where legislators and lawmakers with no knowledge of people’s specific medical needs would make life-or-death decisions without care or concern for the people it impacted? People would be left to die of perfectly treatable conditions in hallways, parking lots, and home, devoid of dignity or a voice that advocates for them? How awful that would be in the most advanced society on the planet, to just let people die from things people in less privileged societies survive from with great regularity? How unacceptable that would be in America?

 

[RDKirk]

The "net positive"/"net negative", countervailing interest rationale (that's part of any prudent policy making) seems to go right out the window with regards to politically charged topics like this.

That becomes extremely evident when people put a spotlight and magnifying glass on each and every outlier incident that occurs to prove a point. (usually aimed at engaging in emotional manipulation and subversion). Rather than simply keeping the conversation confined to the merits (or lack of merits) of the policy itself.

Typically, you only try to manipulate and trick people when you know your argument isn't solid on its own.


If we weren't talking about abortions and laws that prevent ones in certain circumstances, and instead were discussing vaccine mandates... Would the "highlight every allergic reaction outlier" approach be seen as a good faith argument approach to discussing it? Or would it be dismissed as "anti-vaxxers trying to appeal to emotion and attempting to use the exception to negate the rule"?

Or if you want a completely apolitical example... seatbelts.

Per the CDC and the NHTSA
Last year, seatbelts saved 16,000 lives, and another 3500 that would've been prevented had the occupant been wearing one, in additional to preventing 80,000 serious injuries.

Flipside, for the same time window, there were 27 cases of a person getting trapped in a burning car by their seatbelt, and another 43 that got trapped by their seatbelt in a car that was immersed underwater.


If we were having a debate about new mandatory seatbelt laws, and I went out of my way to do an extensive emotional-charged write-up thread about each and every one of the 70 people who got killed by their seatbelt....
"They say Tanya was likely conscience while under water for minutes before finally succumbing and drowning"
and
"Witnesses say they could hear the child screaming in the car, but the child was unable to escape from the car due to the jammed seatbelt while the parents helplessly stood by crying and pleading"

What would the reaction to that be? Would anyone be buying that? Or would people say "c'mon dude, you just don't like wearing seatbelts and you're trying to manipulate everyone... seatbelts are an overwhelming net positive"

I always say that public policy should be designed for the peak of the belt curves, then exceptions made as appropriate for the outliers.