Medical law

As previously mentioned, there are many laws and regulations that interfere with a woman’s right to reproductive

If a woman concedes to voluntary sexual intercourse, she has incurred a responsibility to care for the fetus, since she is responsible for its existence and subsequent dependence on her body for sustenance. Consequently, she has a moral obligation to sustain it until birth, an obligation that ought to be legally enforced by proscribing abortions. (Manninen 41)

This article brings up the debate of weather a healthcare professional has the right to object contraceptives and should not involve themselves in medical practices they have moral qualms with, or give patients the access to all legal treatment no matter what that health professional’s moral qualms should be. This debate questions the balance of doctor-patient

”The rate of sterilization found in this study was twenty-three percent overall, is slightly less than the twenty-five percent rate found in the previous similar study” (Boroditsky, Fisher and Sand). “Minority women, who more frequently experience unintended pregnancy, may choose tubal sterilization in response to prior experiences with an unintended pregnancy” (Unintended Pregnancy …). Doctors should not sterilize anyone who is not able to make the decision on their own and let them decide for them self. “Take steps to ensure all women enjoy full sexual and reproductive rights and have access to full range of acceptable reproductive health service” (Forced sterilization).

It is clear by reviewing the article that the author is very much concerned with the well-being of women at this particular time. She mentions that some “doctors showed themselves more interested in protecting themselves than in caring for their patient.” McLaren also goes into detail with examples to show how the doctors would threaten their patients. Like for instance, Stewart Murrow threatened his dying patient Jennie Young that he would not treat her for septic poisoning if she didn’t name the person who performed the operation. Another case is the Sarah Robins affair where she was stimulated with drugs so as to declare the person who performed the operation. Some doctors saw themselves as the authorities. If a woman were dying in a hospital as the result of a bungled abortion, a statement was taken if only to protect the doctor and the hospital staff. This is why McLaren feels it wasn’t fair for women that doctors were too concerned for their reputation rather than the women who needed their help. McLaren also argues that methods of contraception were very expensive, for example the condom.

“Sir James Clarke’s Female Pills” and other similar products were part of a class of patent medicines targeted at women and advertised as a cure to a universe of “painful and dangerous diseases incident to the female constitution” (Fig. 5The Daily Globe 1856). They offered hope for women in search of relief from monthly discomforts. In actuality, patent medicine manufacturers were capitalizing on the increased demand for abortifacients by advertising products that restored the regularity of the monthly period. To avoid prosecution, veiled language was used to advertise their nature, which compelled women to consider them for the purpose of removing what was described as “irregularities,” “suppressions,” and “obstructions” of the menses and to deal with all causes of the cessation of menstrual flow (Fig. 5; The Daily Globe 1856; The Star of the North 1855).

The modern world is in the midst of reconstructing gender roles; debates about contraception, reproductive freedom, and female inequality are contentious and common. The majority now challenges the long established assertion that women’s bodies are the eminent domain of patriarchal control. In the past, a woman’s inability to control her reproductive choices could come with ruinous consequences. Proponents of patriarchal control argue against reproductive independence with rhetoric from religious texts and with anecdotes of ‘better days,’ when women were subservient. Often, literature about childbearing fails to acknowledge the possibility of women being uninterested in fulfilling the role of motherhood.

“NARAL, recognizing the basic human right of a woman to limit her own reproduction, is dedicated to the elimination of all laws and practices that would compel any woman to bear a child against her will. To that end, it proposes to initiate and co-ordinate political, social, and legal action of individuals and groups concerned with providing safe operations by qualified physicians for all women seeking them regardless of economic status.”

The chapter starts the legal issues with sterilization, which is defined as preventing production by surgeries like vasectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, salpingectomy, etc. These procedures can be perform voluntarily by choice with informed consent and compulsorily to prevent inheriting diseases – Not anymore. Another theme is wrongful birth for disable child and wrongful life, which cases brought behalf of the child because of physicians’ negligence. As mentioned in the text, most of courts decided that physicians are liable and responsible for wrongful birth within the statue of limitation to bring the case. However, only 4 states found that physicians are also liable for wrongful life. Dr. Horvath gave one example previously, which is that

Before my diagnosis, each visit to my family doctor about irregular or severe periods would frequently yield the same result: oral contraceptive was an apparent ‘miracle pill’ that would cure all, completely overlooking my previous complaints of exacerbating symptoms of depression and anxiety. Furthermore, it was ‘sold’ to me, as Corinna’s article points out, that a ‘benefit’ would be a suppressed or completely absent period. Unfortunately, I continue to experience this frustrating mentality, the most recent case being a ruptured cyst that was excused as an ‘abnormal’ period which, in my opinion, illustrates a gross misogynistic bias within the medical system (Corinna

Women make up just slightly over half the U.S population (US Census Bureau, 2010) and should not be even considered a part of a minority group. The female population should acquire the same equal research attention as men do, especially when it comes to health issues. The unavoidable, yet quite simple realities of breastfeeding, menstruation, menopause, along with pregnancy require special scrutiny from medical experts. Those medical specialties are generally referred as gynecologists or obstetrics, who focus on the exclusive needs of a female’s reproductive health throughout their lifespan. Historically, the health needs of women have been disregarded as well as their fundamental rights. However, over the past few decades, it has grabbed the media and the government’s attention causing some major changes in support of women’s rights and health care.

They stated that sterilization prohibited mental deficits from entering the gene pool and due to its simple procedure, it was not an inconvenience to the economy and people of Australia. However, the report failed to indicate that sterilization was occurring without the formal consent of a legal guardian or without the knowledge of the victim. Symbolic of pre-war Australia, the practitioners and the government were not scrutinized by the public and were therefore not held responsible for their actions. Furthermore, due to the belief in eugenics, a bias of the Australian community prevailed as people regarded the loss of reproductive rights as a practice that benefited society as a whole.

Abortion is a highly-debated topic of whether it is ethical for a woman to decide to have one. Abortion is any of various surgical methods for deliberately terminating a pregnancy. When we speak of abortion today, we mean induced abortion performed by trained doctors, not including miscarriage (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2015). Some current methods of abortion are morning-after pill, mifepristone, uterine or vacuum aspiration, dilation and curettage, saline solution, prostaglandin drugs, hysterotomy, and partial birth abortion. Abortion involves questions about rights, happiness, and well-being, as well as the status and value of human life. The people who think it is ethical to have an abortion stand on the Pro-choice side and the people who think it is unethical stand on the Pro-life side. The liberal view of abortion supports abortions and the conservative view opposes abortion. There are many legal, religious, and medical conflicts that are included in the debate over abortion. The arguments made from both sides help us better understand whether a woman should have an abortion.

According to the findings by Mariotti (2012), the psychosocial and emotional components are an integral part of every woman’s pregnancy, and she can make decisions of whether to sustain life in her own uterus or end it (p. 269). At the same time, numerous studies have questioned the personhood of the fetus to provide well-evidenced approaches to evaluation of its social and legal status. Does a woman provide it with all necessary resources and substances like a donor? Does she have a right to extract it from her body in case she does not want to give it life, has some health care issues that put her and the baby at risk, or carries a fetus that was the result of a rape? All those questions are easier to ask than answer, but women should have the right to do with their body everything they want.

IVF raises many of these difficult moral issues. If the above conceptions about the nature of ethics were correct, however, discussion of these issues would either be futile (because morality is a matter of personal choice or opinion) or superfluous (because morality is what a divine or secular authority says it is) (Walters 23). In this paper, I want to suggest that it is not only possible, but also necessary to inquire into the ethics of such practices as IVF because the fact that we can do something does not mean that we ought to do it.