 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
May
21, 2007 
VOL.
45, NO. 10Oakland,
CA
Physician cites
a deep-seated bias
to abort in complicated pregnancies
Pressure to
abort, not a balanced discussion of options, is what a pregnant woman
with a serious health condition can expect from her doctor these days,
according to Dr. Thomas Murphy Goodwin, a specialist in complicated pregnancies
at the University of Southern California.
Speaking to a roomful of pro-life college students at the sixth annual
California Students for Life conference at Notre Dame de Namur University
in Belmont last month, he said there is a deep-seated bias in the medical
counseling of a pregnant woman. The first question most doctors ask, he
said, is “Will you continue your pregnancy?”
A woman with a serious health condition has to endure even worse, he added.
The question is asked repeatedly and the recommendation to terminate is
pressed upon her as if she had no other choice.
According to Dr. Goodwin, doctors routinely tell such women that their
illness will worsen if they continue their pregnancy or that the necessary
treatment will cause fetal abnormalities, despite ample evidence to the
contrary. Most problem pregnancies can be managed so as to minimize, or
even eliminate, possible harm to mother or child.
Only a few heart and lung diseases, rare to women of childbearing age,
seriously threaten the life of a pregnant mother, and usually the risk
of fetal malformation due to treatment is low, he said.
To illustrate how much misinformation is given to pregnant women with
health conditions Dr. Goodwin cited the case histories of a number of
women referred to him because they were reluctant to follow their doctors’
advice to terminate their pregnancies.
He spoke of a pregnant woman diagnosed with breast cancer who was told
that her pregnancy would definitely worsen her illness and that chemotherapy
drugs would severely damage her unborn child.
Dr. Goodwin reassured her that there was only a 10 percent chance of fetal
abnormalities if she took one drug during the first trimester and a 25
percent chance if she took two drugs. During the second and third trimesters,
there is no risk.
He also shared with her data that shows pregnancy does not make breast
cancer worse. The woman safely delivered and was surprised to see her
baby arriving with a full head of hair, as she had lost all hers.
Dr. Goodwin also described cases involving congenital heart disease, leukemia,
lupus, chickenpox. In all these cases even his pro-choice clinic colleagues
were disturbed that the women’s doctors were so quick to recommend
abortion without discussing other options.
Legal liability is the main reason doctors have such a pronounced pro-abortion
bias, according to Goodwin.
Roe vs. Wade has so distorted legal jurisprudence in this country that
there is an “unbalanced definition of informed consent,” he
said. “There is no such thing as a wrongful death, only a wrongful
birth.”
Two thirds of states now allow wrongful birth suits which are put forth
in the name of the child. In these cases the doctor is held negligent
if he failed to tell the woman there were risks involved in the continuation
of her pregnancy and a deformed child was born.
But the doctor is not liable if a woman procures an abortion as the result
of his misrepresentation of the risks involved in continuing a pregnancy.
To bring a suit in such a case she has to prove the doctor intentionally
gave false information.
As a consequence of the possibility of wrongful birth suits, a doctor
must meticulously record his conversations with a pregnant patient to
prove that he adequately informed her. According to Goodwin, even very
conscientious doctors now feel that it is better to err on the side of
recommending abortion.
Dr. Goodwin also addressed the prevailing tendency to recommend termination
for any developing child when pre-natal tests show a serious defect. The
woman is subjected to “tedious discussions” about how the
child will be a burden on her, her family, and society at large, he said.
She is rarely told of the extensive support networks now available for
the parents of any disabled child, he added. Nor is she told of the benefits
that such a child could bring to the family, such as the irrepressible
love Down Syndrome children display toward others.
One major problem, according to Dr. Goodwin, is the attitude of health
plan administrators toward continuing such a pregnancy. If the disabled
child is not expected to live long the administrators usually will refrain
from putting excessive pressure on the woman. But if the child will need
expensive long-term care after birth their pressure can be unrelenting
and traumatizing.
