trans-vaginal ultrasound for no medical reason - Virginia, anti-choice

[MitchieInge]

(and other states I think) is there a thread about this already?

Who is saying that tv scans will be used in every case? Why would they be?

Your cute insistence that this is being done in good faith for the benefit of women makes me wonder if you have an agenda

Your insistance that tv scans will be used in every case makes me wonder whether you have an agenda.

This thread has been completely derailed by misleading claims about tv scans being forced upon everyone who needs an abortion.

As I said before, there could be a serious point here, about whether aspects of this bill are aimed at discouraging access to termination, but you would be hard pressed to find it.

I do have an agenda - i want abortion to be treated as an elective medical procedure that a woman is competent to request, which is then granted without any medically unnecessary garnishes - extra scans, listening to heartbeats etc.

i want them safe and abundantly available, to whoever wants them.

It should be easy enough to see whether evidence speaks for use of scans, or is indifferent.

What adverse outcomes in what number have been associated with abortions without using imaging technology to confirm gestational age? How great is the reduction of these adverse outcomes, since routine imaging has been introduced?

And even if there's a solid evidence base favouring u/s, firstly, shouldn't a woman be able to still refuse it, as an [i]informed[/i] decision, i.e. be presented all the risks and benefits and then decide how to proceed?

Also, if there was a genuine reason, that this was medical best practice, would there be a need to enshrine it into a law, at the decision making stage?

Routine u/s is best practice in continuing pregnancies, but there is no law which obliges a woman to agree to it.

Hurray for sanity!

Hello doctor I think I've broken my leg.

Ok, we'll xray it to see where the break is.

Oh no, I don't believe in xrays, I'm not going to have one. Just put a cast on my leg.

Well if we do that we may put the cast in the wrong place, or even put a cast on where there's not even a break. If there is a break it may need surgery rather than a cast but we can't tell without an xray. There's a chance you could never walk again, need your leg amputating or develop a potentially fatal clot if you don't have an xray.

No still don't want one.

Ok, I'll get the nurse to come and put the cast on now.

that's true - you can give birth without ever having had a scan despite the fact that that could present far greater dangers potentially than having an early termination without a scan.

is it the law that pregnant women have scans in this state? i'm guessing not.

Doees Virginia (or anywhere else) legislate for mandatory x rays in the case of broken bones? if not, whyever not?

But a doctor would refuse treatment for a broken leg without an xray.

I'd like to point out that in the UK at least, scans aren't done in a special 'abortion-only' room (unless, of course, you are at a private abortion clinic). All the women are in together. I was next to a woman who had lost her much-wanted child, late in a pregnancy, and was waiting for a scan to confirm the details. I've never felt shitter in my life.

You also have no way of knowing the views of the staff dealing with you in this context. I had one nurse put her hand on my knee and tell me that I 'should have children as early as possible'. This was in reply to me saying that I wanted a termination.

Viva, your first reply to me agreed that scans were (and are) not always offered in an unproblematic way. I was certainly not given the option of 'coming back a week later' - in any case, I was terrified, sick, unwell and in the midst of a load of deadlines. I wanted an abortion and I wanted it instantly. Under those conditions, 'consent' is a bit of a grey area. I don't understand why you're so affronted that other posters find the idea of scans repugnant.

swallowedafly

Would an induction or CSection be done at the request of the mother, with no previous scanning during the pregnancy?

Gosh they really ought to pass a law about that

I look forward to the ream of legislation drafted to manage all aspects of ledical interventions that don't just involve women's reproductive health

it will be along aaaaaaaaany time i reckon

why change the bar cats? it stands well enough as a direct analogy without raising it. if it's all about concern for women's health then surely scans would be obligatory for all?

I wonder if men feel sad that lawmakers aren't as concerned about their health - not enough to pass laws about it anyway

where are the concerned lawmakers who will ensure that men are made to go through a brace of cardiac exams, explain why they require it to multiple doctors, be forced to listen to regretful testimony and have a cooling off period before they can get access to viagra?

Argh this thread is so full of straw men!

The issue is one of women being forced to have a medically unnecessary scans. TV scans will will be used if judged by medical professionals that it is necessary . We should of course be up in arms that scans are being forced on women when medically unnecessary, but the tv bit is a massive red herring. I'm due to have one next week to decide whether my uterus needs an operation - if I'd never had one, this thread would make me terrified!

Tv scans are not sexual, and are no more intrusive than many, many other medical procedures. Yes it involves the vagina, it's not fun, but neither are smears or d+cs or abortions, or birth for that matter!

The intrusive bit in this legislation is forcing women to hear the fetal heartbeat and see it. This will undoubtedly cause trauma - tv scans are just a means to this unpleasant end in this case.

I'm not a fan of anti-choice legislation, which is what this is, but SQ you're focusing on the wrong part of it.

I'm not changing the bar. A woman could go her pregnancy with no testing or intervention at all and give birth at the end, because birth is usually what happens at the end of pregnancy, with no intervention required.

In the event of an abortion (or induction, or CS) you are asking a doctor to actively perform a procedure, so a different standard applies, as there will then be a need to be sure that the correct procedure is being done as safely as possible.

Like in Vivas example, you can think that you have broken your leg, and if you go home and get on with things no-one will make you have an x-ray, but if you turn up at the hospital requesting a cast then that wont be done without an x-ray.

i look forward to reading the terms of the xray and cast legislation

do keep us posted on when it is passed

well then surely the analogy would be if you gave birth at home no problem but if you turn up at hospital expecting hcps to deal with it....

you're squirming on this one and i don't know why. it was a perfectly valid point that was raised.

and i'd seriously question that birth requires no intervention.

The point is women being forced - well, encouraged - to look at the image, and to hear the fetal heartbeat

Ultrasound scans will be done in most cases for medical abortions here too - just without this caveat.

Argh

It's not the ultrasound procedure in and of itself which is intrusive - it's the making you see and hear the fetus!

They don't need to pass any legislation about xrays as people accept that you need an xray in order to get safe treatment. Plus theres no danger of a doctor trying to take shortcuts by treating a broken leg without an xray.

Viva the legislation is clearly for thepurpose of making women look at the scan and not about medical safety, though.

I'm not squirming. I just cant see why this thread is being persistently driven off a sensible course by nonsense about forcing everyone to have a tv scan. The point is being missed.

so this legislation is in direct response to women refusing best practice and doctors taking shortcuts? Do you have any kind of link for that?