I recently heard the term "weaponizing ignorance" - great descriptor.
Currently, all the media inquiries I'm getting are geared towards "explaining ALL the ways in which abortion is necessary to save life and health" of pregnant persons
coupled with ...
... "if legislators wanted to create a ban that affords flexibility to care for patients what would that look like?"
These questions rely on false premises.
First - there is IMO no ethical way to "create a ban" to a fundamental liberty interest and to fundamental healthcare.
Next - to explain all the ways that #AbortionIsHealthcare I would have to teach you obstetrics. I'm not trying to be evasive when I say that. There are very sincerely 1000s of reasons we may need to perform an abortion for the health of a patient...
Frequently, these situations are difficult to manage medically and emotionally burdensome to the patient but also to family and healthcare teams involved. To add the impediment of discussing these cases with legal and worry over civil and criminal liability is unconscionable.
Restrictive laws provide little to no protection for necessary healthcare - as I've explained in multiple forums.
To frame the questions as media is doing relies on the false premise that a statute could encompass all the complexity of practicing safe obstetrics ...
...- which includes abortion - in a meaningful way. That is not possible. In the same way that legislating the practice of any medical discipline to this level of granularity would not be possible - but notably is only attempted in obstetrics...
I sincerely hope to engage with anyone who has an interest in this topic. But we must start from the premise that restrictions of abortion cause morbidity and death. This is well studied, well established fact. In that context, any ban will be unethical...
... any series of questions seeking to get at what a ban needs to exempt is not an ethical discussion or an appropriate topic for responsible journalism.
A few weeks ago I visited an endometriosis patient post op at bedside....
Her: “Was I crazy?”
Me: “What? No, of course not.”
Her: “Was it there? Was I crazy?”
Me: “Oh, no no. Yes, yes! I found endo - a rectovaginal nodule on the left - just where your pain was. It’s gone.”
...
Her: “She told me I was holding stress in my pelvis. Bullshit”
Me: “Yes, that was bullshit. I’m sorry. I really hope this surgery helps you”
We talked some more. She was tearful. I was at least the 10th doctor she’d seen in seven years...
She was on 3 different medications at once without control of her pain. No referral for surgery - not even discussion of surgery in all those years. We still need to see if this addresses her pain fully as sometimes there is neurogenic pain even post aggressive surgery...
I recently was quoted by @NPR in response to a pro-life OBGYN. Not all of information I discussed was shared so here are all my responses - get ready - this is a long 🧵
@NPR First off - @npr thank you - I appreciated the opportunity to set the record straight as the arguments presented were contrary to clear facts that are well established. I hope to be invited back. I also hope you will consider not airing misinformation in the future.
Second - I was called the VP of ethics. I identified myself correctly as the vice chair of the ethics committee for @acog (I hope never to be Vice President of ethics - what a title!) I’m sure this was a simple oversight.
Insurers are practicing medicine in these instances - legal precedent to hold then accountable. In peer to peer I document name and contact information of md denying service so the patient can reach them for next steps ➡️ 100% success rate on approvals. @DGlaucomflecken
Legal precedent here are cases re “curbsides” during which md’s giving on the fly advice re patient care have been found to have established a patient md rlsp with liability attaching despite not meeting the patient.
Bc those docs had reason to believe their advice would be followed they were responsible for the consequence. Similarly here insurers have strong reason to believe their decision will affect patient care and are responsible for outcome.
So proud of our publication in Green Journal today. For those who might not have easy access here's a run down of argument presented. Would love feedback. 1/?
Article title: "Double Discrimination, the Pay Gap in Gynecologic Surgery, and Its Association With Quality of Care"
What is "double discrimination?" you ask .... let me tell ya 2/?
The gender wage gap is fairly well documented. Congress passed Equal Pay Act in 1963 but women in US are paid
82% of men’s wages. In medicine it's worse: female physicians/surgeons paid only
71% of what their male counterparts are paid. (cites in article or please request)
I’ve been countering a lot of claims that COVID is “just a bad flu.” It’s not but I can understand why we would wish it so as we see the pain and suffering in NYC - or out of fear if not of getting sick then of facing destitution which is very real for many Americans. 1/
This is a great summary to explain why COVID is so much more dangerous. I’ll summarize below. 2/ npr.org/sections/goats…
First the R0 (Rnaught) “Data from China show that each coronavirus case seems to infect about 2 to 2.5 additional people. That's higher than the flu. The average patient spreads the flu virus to about 1.3 others.” 3/
Protect our elderly and immunocompromised by indefinite isolation - essentially jail them in their homes 2/
And ignore for a moment the need to to care for all of them somehow without breaking their isolation. Ignore those at risk who can’t isolate - the homeless for example. 3/