Today headlines are being made about Kermit Gosnell, a 72 year-old abortion doctor of the Women's Medical Society in Philadelphia. He's in the papers across the United States, and making waves in my native land because of abortions he performed on what witnesses assert were living infants (literally fresh from the womb). He has been found guilty of three counts of murder in the first, and one count of involuntary manslaughter due to the overdose of 41-year-old refugee Karnamaya Mongar.
A full article on the trail, and the details can be found here: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/05/13/kermit_gosnell_trial_philadelphia_abortion_doctor_guilty_of_murdering_infants_in_lateterm_abortions.html
This is a massive spark in the debate about abortion. In Philadelphia abortions are not granted after 24 weeks of pregnancy (for those who can't do math: that's about 6 months, almost the start of your third trimester). By this time an infant is fully developed with all the necessary physical bits (some organ systems still getting going). It's even developed taste-buds and the bronci (branches inside the lungs) are starting to develop so that eventually, once born, the infant will be able to breathe air.
So to sum up: it's a baby. It's still inside the mother, no doubt, but a full pregnancy is only 37 weeks (tell that to a pregnant woman!!) so at 24 you are already just 13 weeks away from Junior suckling your teat.
While all of the above might read like a pro-life commercial, I'm actually pro-choice. I have personal limitations on what I deem acceptable or responsible for aborting a fetus, but I still respect a woman's right to say "no, I'm not ready for this, I can't carry this pregnancy to term".
We will get to this later, for now lets focus on the scandal at hand-- Kermit Gosnell and his clinic of apparent horrors. I can only say apparent horrors because, well, I never visited the place, I haven't seen photos, all I have is what is reported to be witness testimony by a few news outlets. Granted, what the testimony seems to illustrate is horrifying but I can't claim to be an expert so I will say this: if the accounts are true, this guy should hang.
So today we tackle two things at once: I am pro-choice and pro-capital punishment *disclaimer* in certain cases. This seems to me, based on the evidence presented to the jury and what has been reported in the newspapers, along with the findings of the jury, a pretty cut-and-dry case. What this so-called "doctor" did was not only disgusting, not only abhorrent, but down-right criminal.
I am referring to the specific cases for which this man was found guilty: the deaths of three infants (they had been born and then their lives were terminated--which is infanticide any way you look at it), and the death of a patient, albeit unintentional. Not only did he go against city bylaws (that 24 week rule) he went against everything common human decency can provide-- the jury is still out on the death-sentence, but I have to go with: all the more power to them.
Now: a few sticky points came up in the above statements.
1. The women who sought the abortions: shouldn't some of the fault lie with them? All three women sought late-term abortions for their children to the point of they actually gave birth, and then the infant was killed. This means that the infant was able to survive outside of the mother's womb, on it's own. In my personal definition (which may, or may not reflect the views of other) a child becomes a child when this stage is met. It is no longer a fetus--if it can live outside on it's own, it's a baby. Biologically-- that's anywhere past the 21 week mark (earliest recorded pre-mature successful birth (Ottawa, Canada)). So Philadelphia's law of 24 weeks is very reasonable in my mind. Keep in mind, a premature birth as extreme as 21 weeks needs intensive post-natal care in a huge facility and chances of survival are slim. This enters an entirely different debate on nature versus medical science, but I say: we have the science, we really ought to use it (this will obviously be countered in future posts, but bear with me here).
So does some responsibility lie with the not-mothers? In my mind--that is a very very hard question to answer. Instinctively, I want to say yes-- because they should have known they were pregnant and couldn't handle it well before the point they came to. The more critical part of my brain has a bigger issue with this.
The issue is simply too complex to put down to a simple yes or no. Now, in my opinion, which you can feel free to disagree with-- if these women came from privileged, upper-class families with access to resources on pregnancy, an income, and stability, I would be firmly in the "yes, these women are irresponsible and should be charged with infanticide" column.
The facts of this case, and for most of the cases that Gosnell dealt with, was that the women involved were low-income, usually immigrants, without access to education, resources, or help. Some reportedly came from abusive households and turned to late-term abortions (in this case it is infanticide as the infants were alive and born when they were killed) out of desperation. So in this particular case-- I can't blame the women. Pregnancy, particularly in those circumstances, would be terrifying and without knowing what to do, I might have made the same choice.
So here is where that issue gets really muddled: did Philadelphia's 24-week law have a role to play in their decision to go to Gosnell for treatment? Yes. Absolutely. A clean, respectable clinic could not (legally) help these women so they had to turn to other means. These means ended up killing a woman, and putting three (or more!) others at serious risk. So the law has to be accountable in there as well-- with Gosnell (I just...I can't bring myself to call him "doctor" or even "human" at this point), and, depending on your opinion, with the women as well.
2. Does Gosnell's actions warrant him a death sentence? This question can't be answered by one person, it has to be answered by a jury. If, however, the evidence presented in the above cited article is accurate, and the conditions of the clinic were accurately portrayed, and the surgeries that were performed there were also accurate (see note about a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ADMINISTERING ANESTHESIA!!!) then I have to go with: burn him. Literally, I can't actually think of a more painful way to die, and this seems to suit.
My opinion is coloured by a few things: a) he was knowingly breaking the law, b) the apparent condition in which he performed these surgeries is better suited to a post-apocalyptic horror film than real life, and c) the extortion he indulged in--sometimes charging these desperate women tens of thousands of dollars to illegally end their pregnancies. This guy was in it for the money. He is the lowest of the low. I can't even believe we are part of the same species.
Rant over.
Where I live, the death penalty isn't legal. The fact that this is an option for this case pleases me. Why should he sit warm and snug in an institution while his victims pick up the remnants of their underwhelming, (in some cases) destitute and desperate lives?
3. To clear up my stance on the whole pro-choice/pro-life debate. I like life. But I respect a women's right to decide what is best for her body, and for her future. Nine months is a long time to carry an infant to term, with a lot of potential health risks and complications. Even though adoption is feasible for many many unwanted pregnancies, throwing more children into an already over-crowded system doesn't fix the problem. I support organizations like planned parenthood, who stress education and resources for women facing the decision. They don't advocate abortion, they just provide the services required if that choice is made by the educated individual(s) making the decisions.
Personally, I don't support abortion after the first trimester. It's three months-- plenty of time to come to grips with your situation and make an educated decision. I don't think anyone who knows they are pregnant forgets about it for longer than a few hours, it is kind of one of those things that dog your every thought from the moment you know it, until the moment it's over. It's a personal standard, though, and not everyone will agree with it-- that's fine. Do what is morally right for you, and I will do what is morally right for me.
A friend of mine, currently researching a master's thesis in sexual education brings up a great point in this whole debate. Education is lacking, and that is a huge factor as to why these travesties exist. Taking the time to educate the public on sex, pregnancy, and abortion is one of the best ways to ensure the topic is taken seriously. (A post on sex education will follow this up in greater detail)
It will be interesting to see how the policy-makers of America handle this instance and the publicity it manufactures. Certainly the pro-life/choice debate is up for renewal and just as certainly the conclusion of the debate (if ever it comes) will be unsatisfactory to someone. That's just the way things go. What I do hope, however, is that corrective action is taken to prevent this kind of disgusting circumstance from ever happening in the future.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to comment down below, share, and debate.
Until next time, Adieu.
I would take it one step further and question the College of Doctors and Surgeons (or whatever the American equivalent might be.) As far as my knowledge goes, nurses in Canada have to re-register with the board every year where in they (and their processes) are heavily scrutinized. I can't say the same for doctors, but it does make you wonder how the acts of such a man were able to continue for so long without anyone catching on. Obviously he tried to hide his acts, but that simply begs the question, how much monitoring of the practices of doctors needs to occur? If he was able to get away with it, others most certainly are. Should the College Board be paying closer attention, or erect some sort of monitoring system to ensure that this sort of things cannot happen again? (Take, for example, Alberta Health Care. As far as prescriptions go, any time you go to a pharmacist to have a prescription filled, there is a central data bank across the province to monitor those activities. An individual can't go get his percs at one doctor and go to another doctor to get the same prescription as it alerts the pharmacist. Can the tools required to perform abortions be linked to a central system upon purchase to ensure that anyone acquiring them is then placed in a database, which in turn could ensure bi-annual random inspections of files, procedures, and employee interviews?)
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me isn't the inhumanity of what he did, but the disrespect towards science. I am all for a women's right to choose under any circumstance (grey-area: you're in a dedicated relationship, then it is a team effort. Let's be realistic here. It's his baby too.) But the problem is that abortion isn't just a yes or no sort of situation. Nor is it, I think, a year then, but no later on sort of situation (I politely take the opposing stance!)
If there were clinics set up for late term abortions that could HUMANELY (the Swiss have assisted suicide. It can be done humanely.) done and then, for instance, utilizing stem cells, potential healthy organs (if we can grow test tube babies, I don't see why it wouldn't be worth examining if those organs, while not fully develops yet, could complete their growth within a lab. You never know what science is capable of these days.) But stems cells especially. There is such a divide between the use of stem cells, but you (as in people, not literally YOU) can't deny that we are learning more and more each day about what they can do, I just read an article the other day about scientists growing a new tooth from them. A full tooth. Brand new. Crazy!
So there is that to consider to. If a woman wants it done, or needs it done, then okay. But find a humane way to deal with it, and find an appropriate way to utilize what can not be to preserve what is already there.
Then there is the whole other argument about educating women. I'd be curious to know as to how many of them were actually aware of the state of the fetuses during the abortions. In other words, was the abortion simply made available to them, or did they know that at X weeks it will have a heart beat, at Y weeks it will develop fingers, at Z weeks it will have eyes etcetc. I wonder about what education these women had regarding pregnancy and fetal development.
So there you have it: Licensing boards, humane alternatives to assist with scientific research, and flipping education. Educate yourselves people. EDUCATE.
It's really hard to say. Just thinking about what he did makes me feel ill, but how do we narrow down the blame? If we blame him for doing it, do we blame the board that allowed him to slip through the cracks, and the fickleness of society that prevented a more open, humane, intelligent option (back to the science), or the education system that failed to provide readily available information to these women (maybe? Again, who knows how educated they were, right?)
ReplyDeleteIt's all speculation. These subjects are difficult to really narrow down because you either feel strongly about it, or you don't feel anything at all it would seem.