AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
I feel compelled to respond to the seemingly arrogant and condescending tone that both Dr. Julio C. Novoa ("Emotion Without Knowledge," Letters, July 15, 2004, p. 6) and Dr. Robert Frischer ("Patients Need 'the Safest Care'") took in their rebuttals to Dr. Daniel J. Wechter's letter in the June 1, 2004, issue ("Partial Birth Abortion Ban." p. 9).
The procedure Dr. Frischer referenced may have been "appropriate and necessary" 25 or 30 years ago since it happened before real-time ultrasound existed.
In the same light, routine mid-forceps deliveries, Scanzoni rotations, and hysterectomy done exclusively for desired sterilization were once appropriate and necessary but now are essentially relegated to the history books. It is ludicrous to justify this often brutal, always destructive procedure on the basis of one self-induced septic abortion decades ago since legal, safe abortion has been available for over 30 years.
Dr. Novoa asserted that the term partial-birth abortion is not used in any text-books or journals and is therefore not an accurate description of this destructive procedure. Perhaps opponents of Dr. Wechter's viewpoint avoid the term partial-birth abortion because it doesn't sit very well with the conscience. It may, however, help one to avoid the guilt associated with the thought of ...