06-26-2024, 12:10 PM
(06-26-2024, 11:48 AM)CJD Wrote: Which was one of my original options.
The problem with it, as I said, is that could lead to doctors simply turning away women in need because they don't care for the scrutiny and potential financial or legal issues if this review board thinks their judgment was not in line with whatever standards they hold.
Like I said, what is the line? Is 25% chance that the mother dies enough to justify an abortion? What about 15%? 10%? At what point is the mother's life worth protecting at the expense of the unborn child? If you put restrictions on this, the likelihood that it causes harm is much higher than the likelihood that it prevents it.
At the end of the day, the medical board is just a group of people, just like the doctor, so why is their judgment held above a doctor's who, as you said, has signed an oath to protect his patients from harm?
Creating a system where doctors have the potential to be prosecuted if a medical board does not agree with their judgment calls that are unverifiable in hindsight is very risky and the gains are extraordinarily small, if existent at all.
The problem with it being a single doctor's call is that it would absolutely be abused, and the main perpetrators would be the wealthy and influential. Just like it was when abortion was illegal. Would this happen in significant numbers? I don't believe so. But I don't think some form of oversight would be a bad thing either, just to ensure the system is not abused. I would absolutely not be in favor of criminal consequences, professional consequences would suffice for anyone caught abusing their position.
