Ah, gotcha. It was the “back notification” thing that confused me; a case of misreading, i’m afraid. Thanks.
JThunder, a cite would be more impressive if it didn’t explicitly say “things have changed since the past” and then itself cite a source published in 1991 summarising the findings of a study taking place 1979-86.
I looked to see if I could find a more recent report, and found this on the WHO’s web page (Warning - it’s a PDF.) The results of this study, published in 2001 with results from 2000, show a maternal mortality ratio of…11.
That seems like a very reasonable approach to me. I’m not in favour of parental consent, but where such forms are law, I would be quite happy to allow your suggeted changes take place.
Still: if those ‘maternal mortality rates’ include such things as:
Ectopic pregnancies (likely to rupture and cause death BEFORE a typical abortion procedure would typically be scheduled and cannot be addressed via abortion anyway - it can only be prevented by successful contraception)
Cesarean section delivery chosen over a normal vaginal birth for non-emergent/non-medical reasons. Cesarean section has a known mortality rate which is greater than that of normal vaginal birth. Such deaths cannot be considered part of the ‘natural risks of pregnancy’, but should be considered ‘risk of elective surgery’.
Amniotic embolism, which is not addressable via abortion (and actually, occasionally is the cause of death during an abortion procedure, but as far as I can tell, is equally likely (which is to say, extremely rare) during any birth, cesarean delivery, or abortion).
Any death during pregnancy, such as that of a ruptured, previously undiagnosed aneurism, whose rupture would have happened eventually, but happened to occur during the pregnancy
…then the statistics are skewed and difficult to use.
Yep, that seems like a reasonable thing to “leave out”.
I really doubt the numbers of people selecting cesarean section over normal childbirth when there are no medical or emergent problems is very high. Having said that, I agree.
Also a fair point, but as you say, rare.
Pregnancy aggravated problems? Yes, if the rupture would have happened eventually, but not if there would be no problem if not for the pregnancy, or if due to the pregnancy the condition is worsened.
…and here i’m afraid is a problem. You’re assuming all these things were included in the figures in this study. I cannot find anywhere in the study where it states this.
Their definitions of maternal deaths stem from ICD-10, though I also can’t find where they say which one it is they’re using at any given point. These definitions are (copied from the source);
Now, both of those definitions don’t seem to include any of the statistic-skewing cases you mentioned. However, there is then the third definition…
… which looks as though it would include not only your cases above, but any kind of accidental death while pregnant.
As I said; I can’t find where they say which definition they use. If you want to read it yourself, please do, you’ll probably spot something i’ve missed.
As for the health risks of pregnancy, I would suspect that they would differ for young girls as opposed to adult women. Wouldn’t pregnancy cause a greater health risk to a 13 year old than to a 25 year old?
However, I found several sites claiming that the death rate from elective (that is, non-emergency) cesareans is 4 in 1000. And as I say, elective cesareans are not a natural outcome of pregnancy. But they would be factored into ‘maternal deaths as a result of pregnancy’ in any typical set of statistics.
I looked and looked, and could not find any recent, reliable statistics regarding true elective cesarean sections - just that ‘the numbers are increasing’. What I did find was this: http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/excerpt.asp?id=30
However, I found several sites claiming that the death rate from elective (that is, non-emergency) cesareans is 4 in 1000. And as I say, elective cesareans are not a natural outcome of pregnancy. But they would be factored into ‘maternal deaths as a result of pregnancy’ in any typical set of statistics.
Yes, they most likely would, and elective cesareans aren’t a natural outcome of pregnancy. But 4 in every 1000 sounds awfully high to me.
I had a look myself, and ran elective cesareans through Wikipedia. They claim (with a cite) that studies looking at maternal mortality with elective cesareans vs. normal childbirth show no significant differences, but i’m having trouble getting at the cite itself (plus, it’s Wikipedia). If we do assume that’s correct, then adding deaths due to elective cesareans to the total maternal mortality rate isn’t going to make a huge difference.
I think we’re in need of some truly authoritative cites.
And does that include such long term problems as autoimmune disorders; a possible consequence of pregnancy ? If lupus kills her in 20 years, she’s still dead because of her parents. How about suicide, due to the trauma of being forced to bear a child against her will ? How about the physical trauma from bearing a child while young ?
Besides, those people were obviously anti-abortion, and I do not trust the honesty or motives of such people. It would be like expecting the KKK to be honest about race.
Indeed. The physical hazards of teenage pregnancy are an oft-cited reason for statutory rape laws, and it’d be appropriate to consider that here when comparing the dangers of childbirth and abortion in minors.
Okay, the source is an anti-cesarean site, and considering that 1 in 3 women who walk into an American hospital will be wheeled out a surgical patient (and I was one of these; moreover my OB offered me a primary elective cesarean at 38 weeks “so sex would be better for my husband, because I wouldn’t get all stretched out down there”)…I’m inclined to feel favorably toward the site. However, the statistics as sourced will either stand up to scrutiny or not.
By the way, Der Trihs, I have never heard of pregancy triggering any autoimmune disorder except perhaps thyroid malfunction. I have, in contrast, heard of vasectomy causing, very rarely, autoimmune disease (triggering or worsening). Can you provide cites for the Lupus/pregnancy link? And, since you throw this out, do you have any statistics for women commiting suicide in the US due to being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? And what are the stated causes for such suicides (post-partum depression? post-partum psychosis?)
This seems pure spin. Do children have the right to make other medical decisions, when abortions aren’t involved? I thought your argument was based on the child’s safety in this particular medical circumstance because of the “myth” of good parents. Which is it?
Of course not. I’ve already provided an example. A child certainly “owns” her teeth, but her parent can decide she gets braces.
A child owns her appendix, but her parents decide if she needs it removed. A child owns her immune system, but her parents decide she’ll be vaccinated. In this specific sense, the body part you seem fixated on is not unique at all. It’s not the body part involved. It hinges upon who has the capacity to make decisions for a minor who does not.
Hmm. You’d probably agree that a parent should have the right to make financial decisions on behalf of his children, since they’re (legally) incapable of doing it themselves, right?
Do you believe, then, that they should also have the right to take out loans in their children’s names, which the children will have to spend 18 years of their lives repaying?
This is not at all a straw man. Try to keep up. It’s what we call analogous. Your logic for prohibiting parental consent was based on the “myth” of good parents, or so I took it. You will not permit consent in any circumstance where the child could be harmed by a parent who will react abusively to the situation.
I am testing your logic here. Do you apply it the same way in a circumstance where the key variables seem to be the same? See the difference? A straw man would be if I asked you to defend your position prohibiting releasing grades to all parents, a position you never explicitly admitted. I asked you how you would assess this situation…
…which is the very opposite of a straw man.
There. Glad I could be of assistance. Now perhaps you could answer the question?
Would you mind explaining in more detail which decades-long obligations you believe parents should be able to force upon their kids, and which they shouldn’t?
I think whether you ask me to defend it, or merely ask rhetorically if I would support it, you’re presenting a non-analogous “gotcha” in hopes it’ll further your case. The most important difference here is, of course, that telling parents their children’s grades doesn’t give the parents any authority over their children’s bodies, it merely gives them information about how their children are doing in school. Another is that there’s no a sacred bond of trust between teacher and student where the teacher won’t disclose private educational information to others. All that being said, for teenagers, I would just as soon send kids home with their grades to share or not share with their parents. It’s not a big deal to me if parents have to learn things from their kids rather than other adults. The parents who fear having to learn about their children’s lives from their children are exactly the parents that scare me. There’s a will to control and a lack of trust there that creeps me out.
No, it was by definition analogous, dude, and this is a standard, honest debating technique. You identified parental abuse as a reason to oppose laws like this. I offered a situation–a real situation, mind you, however rare–that seems to possess the same attributes.
You could respond by showing why it’s not really analogous, or any number of ways. But it’s not a straw man. And, yes, if you find that the logic doesn’t apply here despite the aptness of the analogy, then your case may well be weakened.
Now you’re changing your argument, which is your prerogative. Now your opposition is not founded on the fear that a parent will react abusively. Now your argument seems to be the right of the child to bodily autonomy. Here’s where I might launch another analogy: Would you oppose parental consent laws for tattoos or body piercing? If not, why not?
The goal posts have changed here, it seems. We are no longer concerned with the abusive behavior of parents.