Friday, December 30, 2011

A Woman and Her Doctor

By Sherry F. Colb

In my column for this week, I examine a recent arrest of a New York City woman for self-inducing an abortion, a misdemeanor for which she could face up to a year in jail.  As I suggest in my column, the "self-induced" aspect of the woman's abortion turns out to be largely irrelevant to her particular case.  It turns out that the feature of her case distinguishes this woman's arrest is the designation of a pregnant woman who obtains an abortion as a culpable offender.  In the column, I explore some implications of this designation.

In this post, I want to focus on what I had originally imagined had driven the New York City arrest: the decision of a woman to terminate her own pregnancy rather than seek a licensed physician's services.  Under New York law, a woman who wishes to have a legal abortion must involve a licensed physician.

At first glance, it might seem reasonable to require the involvement of a medical professional in a procedure that could be risky.  Inducing an abortion generally requires dilation of a woman's cervix, for example, and such dilation can make the woman vulnerable to infection if proper precautions are not taken.  But the New York statute does not simply require a medical professional:  it requires the participation of a "duly licensed physician," as either a provider or an adviser.  The woman who prefers to be under the care of nurses or other medical professionals who lack an M.D. is out of luck.

In a related phenomenon, pregnant women who wish to take their pregnancies to term and deliver their babies at home with a midwife rather than at a hospital with a medical doctor can also find themselves out of luck.  Though women throughout history have delivered their children with the help and support of midwives, the medical profession has come to dominate the process of birth and delivery in the United States.  This is true despite the fact that for the overwhelming majority of women, childbirth is a natural and safe process that does not call for services that doctors are uniquely capable of providing.  And for low-risk pregnancies, a large study suggests that home birth is as safe as hospital birth (with the added advantage of significantly reducing the odds of unnecessary, painful, and costly interventions).

Yet in a number of states, a certified nurse midwife, a highly trained and qualified professional, may not attend a home birth without a written collaboration agreement with a physician, a requirement that midwives find both insulting to their professional standing and challenging to their work, given how many physicians are hostile to midwifery and may have nothing personal to gain from supporting the practice.

Though there are obviously important distinctions between abortion and childbirth, it is noteworthy that for a woman undergoing either experience, medical doctors, a group of individuals who are not exactly famous for their humility and capacity to listen to patients, control the provision of reproductive health care.  Ending a pregnancy, whether in abortion or in the birth of a baby, is a highly personal, emotionally intense experience that only women endure.  Many women would, of course, voluntarily choose to involve a medical doctor in their experiences, but some number would prefer the support and care of a non-physician professional who may have more to offer along a variety of dimensions than her analogue with an M.D.  When such women are essentially compelled to rely on a licensed physician, their reproductive choice is curtailed.

The State is surely right to demand that only qualified people hold themselves out as professionals who can attend the end of a pregnancy, whether in abortion or in labor and delivery.  But such qualified people are often graduates of nursing schools or other professional training programs rather than medical schools, and the right of every woman to make her own reproductive choices ought to include the option of selecting from a range of suitable and competent professionals.  The fundamental right to determine one's reproductive life should extend to selecting not only whether and when to bear children but to how as well.

8 comments:

Neil H. Buchanan said...

Excellent Verdict column and DoL post, Sherry! I realize that this question is not relevant to the careful analysis that you offered, but I have to ask: Is medical science capable of distinguishing a 24-week aborted fetus from a 25-week aborted fetus? The factual predicate of this prosecution really surprised me.

Paul Scott said...

The statue creates an odd place for pharmacies. Since it places no limitation on the lower limit, nor does it attempt to define what constitutes "commencement of pregnancy" I wonder (not that I can see it being enforced) if Plan-B can be sold in NY without a prescription to those over the age of 17.

It seems without the prescription (for an otherwise prescription free medication) the pharmacist must know that the intended use and that use is very likely not to be with the advice of a duly licensed physician.

It also creates an impossible position for the woman, since preemptive medical advice is impossible and timely medical advice for the use of Plan B seems unlikely.

To answer's Neil's question, the short answer is no. Additionally, there is the definition problem, since even in the medical profession fetal age is not consistent with the actual age of the fetus (it being measured by the date of last menstruation rather than date of conception, date of implantation, etc.)

I do not know how it was determined that the fetus in this case was 25-weeks old, but I do think regardless of the manner in which it was determined, the defense should have some decent arguments wrt the vagueness of "commencement of pregnancy."

Of course, that only gets the mother so far, since Second Degree Self Abortion requires neither a determination of fetal age nor even a successful abortion. Which gets me back to the morning after pill and the definition of "commencement of pregnancy."

NY would probably be best served to revisit this statute.

Sherry F. Colb said...

Thanks, Neil and Paul, for your very helpful comments. I would concur with Paul on the difficulty of determining the difference between 24 and 25 weeks, unless the woman offered the information when she was arrested. As for the definition of when pregnancy commences, doctors generally settle on the woman's last menstrual period, as Paul notes, but in the absence of a specific definition in the statute, the rule of lenity -- perhaps ironically -- counsels in favor of the pro-life definition (which has pregnancy beginning at conception rather than LMP).

Paul's comment about the use of the morning-after pill over-the-counter is fascinating. I do think the statute may be construed to support such a prosecution (though I suspect that few if any prosecutors would have the appetite for it). I agree that the New York statute calls for revision, and there have been efforts to revise with the New York Reproductive Health Act (see discussion here: http://www.prochoiceny.org/getinvolved/alerts/200705221.shtml). One of the other oddities of the statute is that it is inconsistent with Roe v. Wade in providing only a life-of-the-mother but not a health-of-the-mother exception (although the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act also includes no such exception, and the Court nonetheless upheld it in Gonzales v. Carhart...).

love game said...

Neil and Paul, for the very beneficialBuy RS Gold comments. i'd concur with Paul within of the problems of figuring out the distinction between twenty four and twenty five weeks, unless of course the gal supplied the data when she was arrested. regarding the standard of when being expecting commences, physicians generally settle within of the woman's very last menstrual period, as Paul notes, but within absence of your specific standard within statute, the guideline of lenity -- probably ironically -- counsels in favorBuy world warcraft Gold in the pro-life standard (which has being expecting starting at conception very than LMP).

Joline Rose said...

As for the definition of when pregnancy commences, doctors generally settle on the woman's last menstrual period, as Paul notes, but in the absence of a specific definition in the statute, the rule of lenity -- perhaps ironically -- counsels in favor of the pro-life definition (which has pregnancy beginning at conception rather than LMP).Buy Windows 7 Key
Windows 7 professional product Key
Windows 7 ultimate activation Key

dte said...

A bumblebee if dropped into an open tumbler will be there until it dies, unless it is taken out age gold, It never sees the means of escape at the top, but persists in trying to find some way out through the sides near the bottom age gold, it will seek a way where none exists, until it completely destroys itself rs powerlevel.

dte said...

Be truthful, do what you know is right, put forth effort when it is called for persist Diablo 3 Power Leveling, and the more you do so, the more easily you'll be able to do so Diablo 3 PowerLeveling.Exercise your strength, and you'll surely grow stronger, more capable, and Diablo iii PowerLeveling

smith rose said...

Microsoft Project 2010 Download introduces new features to significantly improve how you manage, schedule, and view your project.