This is my first post. I have been lurking for quite some time and I thank you all very much for the vast amount of information that is here.
This is where I learned that I want very much to be an OR nurse. I have shadowed, observed and considered the environment and I am hooked. So I am awaiting the results of an interview, but in my interview a subject that I never thought of came up. I should have thought of it, but I didn't.
This is a large community hospital. Apparently botched abortions can end up in the OR and of course it will require a scrub/ circulator. They are very clear that if I consent to work there, it will happen and I would have to perform the required role.
I don't want to offend or debate this, but I do need to know one thing.
Is the baby already dead or still alive during these incidents? I can be a woman's nurse if the deed is already done, but I can't participate.
My future is riding on this. I would be grateful for any information anyone would provide.
that's good to know. unfortunately, the definition of "imminent danger" does not include a ruptured 16 weeker who becomes septic later.
i'm a little confused..how would a uterine rupture with a non-viable fetus not be an imminant threat to the mom? is there some new protocal for repair and infection control?help me understand the rationale behind this.....thanks!
i'm a little confused..how would a uterine rupture with a non-viable fetus not be an imminant threat to the mom? is there some new protocal for repair and infection control?help me understand the rationale behind this.....thanks!
i think she is talking about membrane rupture, not uterine rupture.
Not a stupid question FlyOR - once membranes are "grossly ruptured" (not just a little leak that may self seal) there is no way to repair them - think of a ballon stretched full of water.
You are smart to think of all of this before taking on the job. As stated above there will be cases where the fetus may still be live when the procedure has to take place (most recent I saw - and heartbreaking - a young woman who went into total kidney failure early in her pregnancy and couldn't even be considered for a transplant list while still pregnant). Even if your facility is willing to replace you on these cases, you need to think out what you would do if you were on call at 2 a.m. and an emergent case came in. Taking the time to call around and try to get someone to come in could seriously compromise a patient's well being.
If OR is something you have your heart set on doing, why not look into a sugicenter or specialty hospital where these types of cases would not come in.
I'm not an OR nurse, but I would imagine that it would be something that is sent to OB to manage, not general surgery. When I worked ER, all pregnant women, regardless of status or gestation were turfed to OB once stabilized. Unless the OR requires you to rotate to the L&D ORs, I would imagine it's an extremely rare to nonexistent occurence.
just like to add that as a catholic nurse, the church does allow for a d&e, or even a termination if the physical life of the mom is in immenent danger. in case of a uterine rupture, or even in a severe utreatable cardiac failure (congenital on mom's part) that i witnessed, saving mom came first.[/quote]
i hope you don't mind if i clarify this point, but i'd hate people to get the wrong idea -- direct termination of pregnancy is never permitted, but in some circumstances posing imminent physical danger to the mother, it is morally permissible to treat her even though the likelihood is that the baby will die as a result of the treatment. the exact circumstances when that approach should be taken are debated by moral theologians.
i'll be doing a 12 week elective in the or soon and i hadn't even thought of this as a potential issue i might face. as a student, i'm sure i'd be exempt but if i decide to go that way after graduation, it's something worth thinking about, certainly.
I hope you don't mind if I clarify this point, but I'd hate people to get the wrong idea -- direct termination of pregnancy is never permitted, but in some circumstances posing imminent physical danger to the mother, it is morally permissible to treat her even though the likelihood is that the baby will die as a result of the treatment. The exact circumstances when that approach should be taken are debated by moral theologians.
.
Respectfully, you are misinformed, although this is VERY rare. The cardiac case I mentioned did involve an active termination, sadly, at the pleading of the woman's priest, bishop, and MD.
[Not flying by the seat of my pants...18 years of Catholic education, mostly Jesuit.] Info offered only to help others clarify their own moral paradigm.
The cardiac case I mentioned did involve an active termination, sadly, at the pleading of the woman's priest, bishop, and MD.
I'm very sad to hear that. The Catholic Church is very clear in Her total condemnation of direct abortion.
2271. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or as a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law....
2272. Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life...."
I am truly grateful for all of you and the information that you have provided. This issue is a very difficult one. When I went into nursing I only had the idea that I would help save lives. I have since learned that I will face ethical challenges, but this one is intractable for me.
I really wanted that job. I was afraid to ask a lot of questions of the interviewer because I was kind of shocked speechless. I realize it was dumb but I just never considered this problem.
Unless they can tell me, which I am pretty sure that they can't, that the baby is not alive when I get to it, I can't take this job.
kiwi and blue ridge, i have no idea what you're arguing about. you agree.
???
sorry--a little canon law debate that doesn't really fit here!
original itent only that the most pro-life organization on the planet doesn't insist mom die to save baby..an enourmously rare set of circumstances.
kiwi--it was terminate, or the mom, the mother of three young children, would die from cardiac tamponade and untreatable (then, at least) pulmonary htn it's obscure, but in the long version of the canon. it was choice between one death or two deaths. i am personally as pro-life in any form as anyone i know.
BlueRidgeHomeRN
829 Posts
i'm a little confused..how would a uterine rupture with a non-viable fetus not be an imminant threat to the mom? is there some new protocal for repair and infection control?help me understand the rationale behind this.....thanks!