[Noryn]

Originally Posted by Jolie

I've already answered this question.

There are 2 elements that set this law apart from others: 1. The requirement that the U/S screen be pointed toward the mother. My answer as stated above is that this is essentially a non-issue since the mother is not required to view the screen. If the law required her to view the screen, I might understand the objection, but it doesn't. 2. The requirement that the physician verbally state the results of the U/S including measurements of embryonic size. I believe this is justified and necessary in order for the mother to give informed consent. Just as you would not give consent for any other elective medical or surgical procedure without receiving an explanation from your physician of the diagnostic test(s) that indicate the need for the procedure.

I simply do not agree, I think it is unprecedented. There is no other procedure where a monitor is pointed in your direction if you do not wish it to be. Why would nurses, who are patient advocates, allow this? What benefits will come from having an untrained, emotional woman view this ultrasound? If they can turn their head away, why can we not turn the monitor away?

I also do not agree with providing details although it appears to be a bit vague. A simple, "You are 8 weeks pregnant and this is how we will perform the procedure" is adequate.

Again these measures are short sighted. Making this a traumatic experience will not prevent most abortions. If anything it will make patients rely on alternative methods that pose a higher risk to their health.

[morte]

ALL nec info, can be covered without the U/S description, THE ONLY reason to force this on a woman, and remember this includes rape and incest victems (sp)......is TO INTIMIDATE into not having the abortion..THAT is the bottom line....not care, not informed consent, nope. to stop the abortion from taking place, that is it. and only that.....

[morte]

Originally Posted by Noryn

I simply do not agree, I think it is unprecedented. There is no other procedure where a monitor is pointed in your direction if you do not wish it to be. Why would nurses, who are patient advocates, allow this? What benefits will come from having an untrained, emotional woman view this ultrasound? If they can turn their head away, why can we not turn the monitor away?

I also do not agree with providing details although it appears to be a bit vague. A simple, "You are 8 weeks pregnant and this is how we will perform the procedure" is adequate.

Again these measures are short sighted. Making this a traumatic experience will not prevent most abortions. If anything it will make patients rely on alternative methods that pose a higher risk to their health.

thank you

[Noryn]

Originally Posted by morte

ALL nec info, can be covered without the U/S description, THE ONLY reason to force this on a woman, and remember this includes rape and incest victems (sp)......is TO INTIMIDATE into not having the abortion..THAT is the bottom line....not care, not informed consent, nope. to stop the abortion from taking place, that is it. and only that.....

Yeah that is why I called it a sick game in my other post.

[OklaLPN]

Once again, I just shake my head, at the decisions of my legislature. Sen. Lamb does NOT speak for me. I get so tired of all the "do-gooders" making these decisions for me.

The decision to have the US screen turned towards the patient, with a narrative, is abuse, as far as I'm concerned. Is the Oklahoma AMA in agreement with this? I would certainly hope not. Surely not all of the physicians agree with this legislative action. If they do, then they are just as much to blame with patient abuse!

I am not usually one to jump out on a tree limb, but, this is one time that the ACLU should get involved. Plus, this is the first time I have heard of this legislative action and I live in a large city in Oklahoma. Was this a "hush hush" bill that was passed, because of the absurdity?

This is a decision between the patient and her physician. We don't need any more intrusion from Sen. Lamb.

OklaLPN

[iteachob]

Originally Posted by Suesquatch

The point of the procedure is to show the woman that the fetus is already cute and baby-like and that she is committing infanticide.

Well....you know, there is something to be said for informed consent. Why are pro-choicers so afraid of that?

[morte]

Originally Posted by iteachob

Well....you know, there is something to be said for informed consent. Why are pro-choicers so afraid of that?

have you taken the time to read the whole thread? there is no need for audio visual aids to obtain informed consent......its one, and only one reason for being is to deter the abortion from taking place, the purposeful infliction of psychological distress should seem obviously against nursing and medical oaths

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by morte

have you taken the time to read the whole thread? there is no need for audio visual aids to obtain informed consent......

Let's stick to the facts: The law does not require "audio visual aids". It requires the physician to verbally inform the woman of the measurements of her embryo. The mother need not observe the U/S.

[Vito Andolini]

Originally Posted by Jolie

Now that we've established that viewing the screen (or not) is he choice of the woman, lets move on to providing the patient with an accurate assessment of her condition.

It is intimidation and harassment to describe a patient's condition to her? Can you please provide an example of another medical/surgical procedure in which you would witness informed consent knowing that the patient has been deliberately kept unaware of her condition, either by refusal of the physician to discuss it, or by her own refusal to listen?

That is the basis of informed consent. I can't believe that nursing professionals advocate knowingly performing an elective procedure without obtaining informed consent.

And it is a procedure with physical and emotional side effects, like any other. Women who have had abortions sometimes die, become sterile, have infections, were not aware of how painful the procedure would be, often experience lifelong remorse and guilt and cannot forget the child whose life they ended. that's not to say there aren't reasons sometimes, good reasons, for AB, as I stated earlier. At least, I think there are.

I do think that patients have often, often, too often been kept in the dark about the fact that the product of conception is a baby and that they are killing that baby and that there are alternatives.

[Vito Andolini]

Originally Posted by OklaLPN

Once again, I just shake my head, at the decisions of my legislature. Sen. Lamb does NOT speak for me. I get so tired of all the "do-gooders" making these decisions for me.

The decision to have the US screen turned towards the patient, with a narrative, is abuse, as far as I'm concerned. Is the Oklahoma AMA in agreement with this? I would certainly hope not. Surely not all of the physicians agree with this legislative action. If they do, then they are just as much to blame with patient abuse!

I am not usually one to jump out on a tree limb, but, this is one time that the ACLU should get involved. Plus, this is the first time I have heard of this legislative action and I live in a large city in Oklahoma. Was this a "hush hush" bill that was passed, because of the absurdity?

This is a decision between the patient and her physician. We don't need any more intrusion from Sen. Lamb.

OklaLPN

Of course, the abortionist surgeon has a financial interest in doing abortions. This is not the most neutral party to "inform". And I don't see what is wrong with informed decision-making.