Planned Parenthood challenges ban on abortions via Internet in Iowa

[question everything]

Source: Omaha World Herald

DES MOINES (AP) — Planned Parenthood of the Heartland asked an Iowa court on Monday to block the coming ban of a videoconferencing system used to distribute abortion-inducing pills in the state. The group and its medical director, Jill Meadows, filed in Polk County District Court for judicial review of the ban issued in late August by the Iowa Board of Medicine. The group also filed a motion for a stay, which would make the ban ineffective during litigation.

(snip)

The telemedicine system, the first such system in the United States when it began in 2008, involves a doctor consulting with patients in remote clinics across the state. The doctor, typically based in Des Moines, uses an Internet video system to distribute abortion-inducing pills. Abortion opponents said the practice is dangerous and petitioned to the board this summer to ban it. Planned Parenthood said there is no medical evidence to support that argument.

The medical board has the authority to make such policy decisions. Its new rule, approved on an 8-2 vote, would require that a doctor be physically present with a woman when providing an abortion-inducing drug. The board said in a statement Friday that the goal of the new rule is to protect the health and safety of Iowans.

(snip)

The ban is scheduled to go into effect on Nov. 6.


Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20131001/NEWS/131009936/1707

[Pterodactyl]

1. I'm skeptical of this practice. Doing medical procedures over the internet seems like a bad idea.

[askeptic]

2. Make an argument - your "feelings" are not a reason

If you have an argument or evidence as to why internet based medicine, using conference call technology, is much different from visiting in person. Time to quit acquiescing to the irrational.

[Pterodactyl]

4. OK, here is your more elaborate answer.

First, getting vital signs would be harder to collect accurately and harder to communicate to the doctor.

Second, speaking with a doctor in person is very different than conference calling. The doctor can observe and pick up on things like breathing and heart rate, and change in awareness or attitude.

Third, in person treatment also depends on nonverbal communication. Part of an examination is physical. A good doctor can tell a lot with a stethoscope and can ask for information like "Does it hurt when I do this?" The doctor will be more likely to pick up on symptoms that the patient is embarrassed to talk about or might think are not significant.

Fourth, some patients are not tech savvy and may not be comfortable with communicating via a teleconference, which leads to treatment problems.

Fifth, chill out, dude. Just because I say "seems like" does not mean my opinion is based on emotion. Take a chill pill and think.

[Recursion]

3. It's really the next big thing, and has some great possibilities for basic health services

Particularly in hard-to-service areas (think Appalachia). A company I worked for a few years ago did a prototype of a triage van that goes from shack to shack and the doctor can look at people's impetigo and tell them what they need.

[LeftyMom]

5. Evidence does not support your concerns.