Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have no problem with statute that bans only D&X if it can be demonstrated with reasonable certainty that there are no circumstances that it would be safer than a D&E.
|
I think that is what the DOJ would like to be able to argue in its defense of the law, but without the medical records, that is pretty hard to do.
There are plent of doctors that will tell you that there are no circrumstances that would be safer and others who will disagree. Just like there are doctors that think it should be illegal to inject human growth hormone as an anti-aging treatment and other doctors who will prescribe that.
What is reasonable certainty in a medical context? Generally that takes clinical studies. No one has done a clinical study looking at the safety of D&E vs. intact D&X.
The link I posted to you before summarized the data correctly as:
Quote:
|
Intact D&X may minimize trauma to the woman's uterus, cervix, and other vital organs. Some physicians may use intact D&X when the fetus has been diagnosed as having anomalies incompatible with life outside the womb. However, some physicians have suggested that the procedure may increase complications, such as cervical incompetence.[27] In the absence of controlled studies, the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown.
|
The history of intact D&X is that some OB/Gyn named Haskell made up the procedure and started doing it. You can read his account of that
here . In his opinion, it was an easier procedure to do. Other doctors don't think so. No one has done a clinical trial comparing the two procedures so there is no objective data only antedotal evidence and subjective opinions of doctors who do abortions, some of whom say one is better and some of whom say the opposite.
In a medical context, when there have been no trials assessing something, you just get a bunch of doctors giving their antecdotal opinions about their own personal experiences with various procedures. One doctor will say one thing and another will say another.
This is precisely why the DOJ needs those medical charts. There have been no clinical trials on this. And the plaintiff doctors in the suit are going to give their opinions of thier personal experiences using these procedures. So the DOJ needs access to those charts to be able to prepare to depose the doctors.
