Post-Roe, doctors worry about what constitutes lifesaving care

Post-Roe, doctors worry about what constitutes lifesaving care
Written by Publishing Team

“But under these laws, if that person comes to me at six or seven weeks before they’ve got that chance to get treated, can I do their abortion or do I have to wait until they get sick?” she said. “That idea of ​​having to wait for someone to get sick is just counterintuitive to what we are trained to do as physicians.”

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, R-Texas, said he has never seen confusion over what is considered life-saving in the field.

“I consider myself a pro-life OB-GYN in practice for 25 years. Never once did I hesitate to take care of a patient who had suffered a spontaneous incomplete miscarriage,” said Burgess, who said he has been or is still a member of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association.

But the AMA said it is fielding a wide range of questions about patient health and potential prosecution from members since the Dobbs decision.

“Physicians are struggling everyday, and these are not rare examples,” said Jack Resneck Jr., AMA’s president. “Physicians have been placed in an impossible situation — trying to meet their ethical duties to place patient health and well-being first, while attempting to comply with vague, restrictive, complex, and conflicting state laws that interfere in the practice of medicine and jeopardize the health of patients.”

About the author

Publishing Team