Hwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/rapid-city-doctors-address-medical.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/rapid-city-doctors-address-medical.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\s59c.ajuxa^IZ9aOKtext/htmlUTF-8gzippB9aJ}/yFri, 02 Jan 2009 08:31:05 GMT"a5083d20-e8a9-49f8-b5f1-f029e5fff544"F+Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *_^Ir9a Dakota Voice: Rapid City Doctors Address Medical Concerns Over Pro-Life Measure

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Friday, October 10, 2008

Rapid City Doctors Address Medical Concerns Over Pro-Life Measure

VoteYesForLife.com held a press conference at their office in Rapid City at noon yesterday to discuss the Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS) which has been in the news lately.

Opponents of Initiated Measure 11 claim this fetal problem could not be treated under IM 11 without placing the doctor in legal jeopardy.

Several doctors spoke today about that issue. Appearing at VoteYesForLife.com were Dr. Daniel Franz, Dr. Mike Statz, Dr. Donald Oliver, and Dr. Pamela Schmagel.

Dr. Schmagel, an OBGYN, said some people claim that IM 11 would not allow doctors to carry out medically-indicated plans and procedures as may be necessary.

"This, of course, is not true," said Schmagel.

"There are multiple ways to treat Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome," Schmagel continued. "And there are no perfect treatments. Please remember that these are highly technical treatments, and most are not available in South Dakota."

The intent of this procedure, she pointed out, is to save life, not to end it--a critical difference between this procedure and abortion.

"Television ads like the one previously mentioned," said Schmagel, "Are misrepresenting the true intent of this measure. Initiated Measure 11 does not preclude the use of standard medical procedures with the goal of life and health."

One lady (I'm not sure if she was a reporter, but suspect she may have been someone from the pro-abortion South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy Families) said the South Dakota Medical Association recently issued a statement opposing this measure, and asked for a response from the group of doctors.

Dr. Don Oliver said he had not read such a statement from the South Dakota Medical Association, but if what was said was true, he was disappointed in it.

A question was asked where it says in the bill that this kind of procedure is acceptable, and Dr. Oliver said the bill states accepted medical practice is allowed to extend life for mother and child.

Dr. Schmegel said she was a member of the medical association, but she was not made privy to what they supposedly said earlier today.

Dr. Statz pointed out again that the intent to save life is covered and allowed under this bill. He also said there were several methods of treating the TTTS condition that are "accepted medical practice."

However, he said there is no one the state of South Dakota who performs this procedure, so this procedure would not even be applicable to any doctor in South Dakota. He said he believed that Ohio is the nearest place where this procedure could be obtained, but even if it were performed in South Dakota, it would be permissible under IM 11.

He also pointed out that there are no South Dakota doctors who perform abortions; they are all flown in from Minnesota to Sioux Falls.

He also said the only doctors pushing this are pro-abortion doctors. He said all standard medical care can be given by an obstetrician under this bill.

The bill, he said, was written by the Attorney General and 11 other experts with specific intent to meet medical and legal requirements.

Dr. Schmagel said she will not change her practices in any way when this bill passes. She said she routinely cares for high-risk pregnancies and other complications, and that everything she currently does will continue to be permissible under IM 11.

Dr. Oliver said many in the public and media are missing the point of this debate over IM 11.

He recalled that the South Dakota Campaign for UnHealthy Families in 2006 campaigned on "no exceptions," implying that if there were exceptions, they would support the bill. Now that a bill is here with exceptions, they again refuse to support the bill. Dr. Oliver said people should be asking, "Why?"

He said these people who are opposing IM 11 are radically pro-abortion and believe in abortion on demand at any time for any reason, and they hide behind objections like this TTTS condition because they know most South Dakotans don't agree with their extreme position. He said they are afraid to be honest.

Dr. Oliver said the people of South Dakota asked for these exceptions, so we are back with a bill that provides what the people indicated they desired.

Dr. Statz said polls done in 2006 and in this year have indicated overwhelming support for a bill that had exceptions.

Dr. Statz said medical association polling done in 2006 were biased and contained errors, and that those errors were eventually acknowledged and apologized for by the association.

When asked, Dr. Schmegel said she wasn't sure how many twin pregnancies would be severe enough to require the procedure discussed, but about 1 out of 1000 twins are affected by TTTS itself in varying degrees.


0 comments:

 
Clicky Web Analytics