Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Whatever it is, why are judges deciding what is medically necessary rather than doctors? Is every doctor Nick Riviera or something? YOu appear to acknowledge that reasonable medical minds can disagree about the necessity of a procedure in a given case. Why, then, should we have a judge be the ultimate arbiter of this question?
|
Because someone dies as a result of this medical decision. You seem to keep forgetting that. It is because 3 people are involved in an abortion - a mother, a doctor, and an unborn child. The doctor and the mother aren't looking to protect that child (they are looking to abort it) and the state has an interest in that unborn life.
While the constitution protects the mother's ability to abort the fetus, it doesn't give her an unfettered right to dispose of the unborn child in anyway she chooses. Pulling half the body out of the uterus before you suck the brain of the child out is pretty damn close to being born. And if it is not medically necessary to do that, the state has a legitimate interest in regulating that procedure.
This isn't a simple medical decision in which a patient and a doctor decide how to treat an illness of the patient. This is a procedure in which a patient and a doctor decide how to end another's life.
Threaded Mode