"Adjustment Disorder" in Abortion Patients
Kansas Spotlight
Submitted by S. Davis
Pro-Life activists are asking the legislature to require Paul Morrison to go forward with charges against abortion doctor, George Tiller, that were initiated by former KS AG, Phill Kline:
The Kansas statute that allows late term abortion states:
"No person shall perform or induce an abortion when the fetus is viable unless such person is a physician and has a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine that: (1) the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
According to Pro-Life activists, Tiller used the DSM diagnosis “Adjustment Disorder” to justify late term abortions in some of the cases that Kline wished to prosecute. Adjustment Disorder, according to the American Psychiatric Association involves an identifiable stressor and a reaction to this stressor which involves one or both of the following:
- Marked distress that is in excess of what would be expected from exposure to the stressor
- Significant impairment in social, occupational or educational functioning
The usual treatment for adjustment disorders is psychotherapy:
If the symptoms of an adjustment disorder last longer than 6 months, the clinician must then consider other diagnoses given the duration of the problems.
I am not aware of any study that claims to know what variables would predict the course of symptoms of an adjustment disorder, or for that matter any psychiatric diagnosis. Therefore, I am wondering if on a technical grounds, The Pro-Life activists don’t in fact have a case that these diagnoses ARE NOT sufficient grounds to justify an abortion – as the statute is now written.
Julie said:
This issue really steams me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why are they focusing in like the Dr. is a big nasty scary monster!?! Is this Dr. prowling the streets forcing pregnant women into his den of iniquity? Is he coercing them into abortion? Is he imposing dire threats if they do not comply with his services?
The girls and women are coming TO him and providing payment for services rendered!
Granted he may not be a licensed psychologist but he is a medical doctor who appears to be providing services that his clients desire.
I'm not saying abortion is right or wrong - that is entirely a different soapbox. But the abortion activists are targeting the wrong person (once again). The abortion providers are providing a service that evidently is needed by some and if abortion is illegal it will still be done only in the proverbial back alleys and unsanitary/unsafe conditions by individuals who may not have any business dealing with medical issues.
If the abortion protesters really want to stop abortion - stop rapes, stop deadbeat men (the ones who impregnate (accidentally or not) a female and then leave), educate females who use it as a form of birth control, stop the stigma of being an unwed mother, make the adoption process easier, here's a concept - allow easy access to morning after pills or birth control pills.
(Have I done enough ranting?)
Why are they focusing in like the Dr. is a big nasty scary monster!?! Is this Dr. prowling the streets forcing pregnant women into his den of iniquity? Is he coercing them into abortion? Is he imposing dire threats if they do not comply with his services?
The girls and women are coming TO him and providing payment for services rendered!
Granted he may not be a licensed psychologist but he is a medical doctor who appears to be providing services that his clients desire.
I'm not saying abortion is right or wrong - that is entirely a different soapbox. But the abortion activists are targeting the wrong person (once again). The abortion providers are providing a service that evidently is needed by some and if abortion is illegal it will still be done only in the proverbial back alleys and unsanitary/unsafe conditions by individuals who may not have any business dealing with medical issues.
If the abortion protesters really want to stop abortion - stop rapes, stop deadbeat men (the ones who impregnate (accidentally or not) a female and then leave), educate females who use it as a form of birth control, stop the stigma of being an unwed mother, make the adoption process easier, here's a concept - allow easy access to morning after pills or birth control pills.
(Have I done enough ranting?)
Danny said:
Julie,
I'm one of the pro-life people you speak of and everything you said about what needs to happen to end abortion I agree with. I'm one of the few who actually think that abortion reflects a need elsewhere, and that those needs to be addressed before abortion is going to go away. Sadly, some don't see it that way.
I'm one of the pro-life people you speak of and everything you said about what needs to happen to end abortion I agree with. I'm one of the few who actually think that abortion reflects a need elsewhere, and that those needs to be addressed before abortion is going to go away. Sadly, some don't see it that way.
Gster said:
I agree with both Julie & Danny. I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that deep down, no one is really "for" abortion.
In today's far from perfect world, for the reasons Julie gave, a need for abortion exits, no matter where you stand. If the "needs" are not present, abortion would necessarily go away. IMHO
I'm getting into my foxhole now!
In today's far from perfect world, for the reasons Julie gave, a need for abortion exits, no matter where you stand. If the "needs" are not present, abortion would necessarily go away. IMHO
I'm getting into my foxhole now!
Dubya said:
I would have to say you hit the nail on the head, Gster. No one I know is truly FOR abortion; no one I know would ever consider it truly as an option and CERTAINLY not as some form of birth control.
I would never be for a late or 3rd-term abortion; even mid-term abortions are highly suspect, in my opinion. However, there are those situations in early pregnancies that merit a DNC termination. Only the people involved in the pregnancy can make that decision.
AGAIN, however...before the flames start roaring in...I would be completely opposed to the debated "late term" abortions. At any time where the fetus would be viable outside the womb, it's far too late to terminate.
~Dubya
I would never be for a late or 3rd-term abortion; even mid-term abortions are highly suspect, in my opinion. However, there are those situations in early pregnancies that merit a DNC termination. Only the people involved in the pregnancy can make that decision.
AGAIN, however...before the flames start roaring in...I would be completely opposed to the debated "late term" abortions. At any time where the fetus would be viable outside the womb, it's far too late to terminate.
~Dubya
Dubya said:
In addition to Gster's comments I would like to add that the last time abortion was actually outlawed, women took the matter into their own hands and performed those procedures upon themselves; throwing themselves down stairs, metal clothing hangers...
Outlawing it doesn't stop the action. Look at prohibition(old school), illegal immigration (and hiring thereof)...and others that I don't want to list for fear that people would think I'm putting them on an equal level with abortion...
~Dubya
Outlawing it doesn't stop the action. Look at prohibition(old school), illegal immigration (and hiring thereof)...and others that I don't want to list for fear that people would think I'm putting them on an equal level with abortion...
~Dubya
Danny said:
Dubya,
I agree outlawing it isn't going to stop it because the root issues for why it exists legally(and prior) haven't been resolved. Identifying those root issues is easy enough(I think), solving them... well that is probably going to take a near miracle. Probably best I don't try and be a politician. ;)
I agree outlawing it isn't going to stop it because the root issues for why it exists legally(and prior) haven't been resolved. Identifying those root issues is easy enough(I think), solving them... well that is probably going to take a near miracle. Probably best I don't try and be a politician. ;)
Mary Caruso said:
I agree, the focus needs to be on prevention. As you all know, I HATE ABORTION, but I also can't stand the idea of a woman being forced to be a parent when she doesn't want to be.
I think we need to change the way we look at abortion, see it for what it is and try to find viable alternatives and prevent the need for it. It is the termination of innocent human life, but like war (not this one), sometimes it's necessary. Outlawing it won't stop it, so we need to work on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, that's the only realistic way to stop abortion. Sometimes the easiest solution can turn out to be the hardest one to live with. I know more than a few women who have had an abortion when because they were desperate and then regretted it as they got older. Both sides need to work on the common goal of prevention.
I think we need to change the way we look at abortion, see it for what it is and try to find viable alternatives and prevent the need for it. It is the termination of innocent human life, but like war (not this one), sometimes it's necessary. Outlawing it won't stop it, so we need to work on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, that's the only realistic way to stop abortion. Sometimes the easiest solution can turn out to be the hardest one to live with. I know more than a few women who have had an abortion when because they were desperate and then regretted it as they got older. Both sides need to work on the common goal of prevention.
lindainks55 said:
Danny, rm and I were discussing those who choose to be politicians on yesterday's open thread. He has some great thoughts on why anyone would want to "try and be a politician."
Danny said:
Linda,
I read that yesterday, didn't really comment on it as I didn't have alot to say on the matter yet.
Mary,
I agree in not forcing a woman to be a parent, though(and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't adoption be a possible solution to that? I know that means carrying the child for nine months. However, I do agree much more needs to be done in solving the root causes. Granted I do not know much about adoption or its procedures, so I'm not an expert on that.
I agree with prevention: sex education needs to happen, and I think it should include forms of birth control and abstinence. Leaving either out is ignoring a possible solution.
My aunt was one of those women who had an abortion when she was younger, and then right after had her tubes tied. Then recently she and my uncle ended up pregnant. They kept him, and he is great even if he does have Downs syndrome. Probably the best thing for my kid(and soon to be kids), and my nieces and nephew.
I read that yesterday, didn't really comment on it as I didn't have alot to say on the matter yet.
Mary,
I agree in not forcing a woman to be a parent, though(and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't adoption be a possible solution to that? I know that means carrying the child for nine months. However, I do agree much more needs to be done in solving the root causes. Granted I do not know much about adoption or its procedures, so I'm not an expert on that.
I agree with prevention: sex education needs to happen, and I think it should include forms of birth control and abstinence. Leaving either out is ignoring a possible solution.
My aunt was one of those women who had an abortion when she was younger, and then right after had her tubes tied. Then recently she and my uncle ended up pregnant. They kept him, and he is great even if he does have Downs syndrome. Probably the best thing for my kid(and soon to be kids), and my nieces and nephew.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Steven, the question you raise on the technical point is, to my mind, the heart of the issue. From memory, there's an Attorney General's opionion on this, which does not support the position which is attempting to be forced upon Mr. Morrison. However, an Attorney General's opinion is just that; an opinion, and does not, in and of itself, have the force of law.
It should be up to Mr. Morrison and his office to make a determination on this matter, without the potential pressure from the legislature.
It should be up to Mr. Morrison and his office to make a determination on this matter, without the potential pressure from the legislature.
lindainks55 said:
Well Danny, you're good because rm and I didn't have the conversation you read yesterday until today.
Danny said:
Oh, well maybe I didn't read it yesterday, crap... i'm going senile already and I'm not even old enough for it. Oh well, the men in my family always die early anyway...
darwinsdisciple said:
"(2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
Thanks greatly, Vaughn. My point, though not stated very well above was that our ability to prognosticate the trajectory of most mental disorders falls way below the standard that is set out in the above portion of the statute.
I recall hearing that when the statute was being writtten there was consideration given for specifically banning a mental health condition/criteria. This was shot down due to the recognition that such would be in conflict with federal law.
With Psychosis, we are pretty close to being able to say with certainty that each time a brain experiences a psychotic episode, it is damaged and future psychotic episodes are more likley - i.e. the "kindling" hypothesis. With other disorders, I am not thinking we have as much certainty - I take the words "will cause" as requiring at least a "more likely than not" level of certainty.
Too bad GMC isn't around to weigh in. Some of us "assholes" don't mind him too much when he has his "rational" hat on...
Thanks greatly, Vaughn. My point, though not stated very well above was that our ability to prognosticate the trajectory of most mental disorders falls way below the standard that is set out in the above portion of the statute.
I recall hearing that when the statute was being writtten there was consideration given for specifically banning a mental health condition/criteria. This was shot down due to the recognition that such would be in conflict with federal law.
With Psychosis, we are pretty close to being able to say with certainty that each time a brain experiences a psychotic episode, it is damaged and future psychotic episodes are more likley - i.e. the "kindling" hypothesis. With other disorders, I am not thinking we have as much certainty - I take the words "will cause" as requiring at least a "more likely than not" level of certainty.
Too bad GMC isn't around to weigh in. Some of us "assholes" don't mind him too much when he has his "rational" hat on...
Vaughn Tolle said:
dd, actually a conflict with a SCOTUS opinion, which, as I remember, was a basis for the Attorney General's opinion, that is, that under the SCOTUS case, there has to be consideration for mental, as well as physical, health. I don't have the cite for either (SCOTUS or AG) handy, so can't review the same, and am, therefore, working from memory.
Vaughn Tolle said:
"At any time where the fetus would be viable outside the womb, it's far too late to terminate."
Dubya, at what point is a fetus viable outside the womb? Is it when the fetus is able to survive with "normal" food, hydration, and care? Is it when, due to advancements in technology, the fetus may survive only if placed into neo-natal intensive care for a period of "artificial gestation"? Is it somewhere between?
What about the tragic cases where only the brain stem develops; the fetus can be born, and survive a short period; is this viability? I'm sure that I could find other tragic situations in the medical literature, were I so inclined, that this issue would arise.
Not trying to pick a fight or start a flame war. I am genuinely curious, if you will, what your opinion is on this.
Dubya, at what point is a fetus viable outside the womb? Is it when the fetus is able to survive with "normal" food, hydration, and care? Is it when, due to advancements in technology, the fetus may survive only if placed into neo-natal intensive care for a period of "artificial gestation"? Is it somewhere between?
What about the tragic cases where only the brain stem develops; the fetus can be born, and survive a short period; is this viability? I'm sure that I could find other tragic situations in the medical literature, were I so inclined, that this issue would arise.
Not trying to pick a fight or start a flame war. I am genuinely curious, if you will, what your opinion is on this.
WSClark said:
Like the illegal immigration issue, I look at abortion from a different point of view. In my mind, illegal immigration is largely the fault of those that HIRE the illegals. End the hiring - end the illegal immigration.
When it comes to abortion - I fully and completely support a woman's right to choose - HOWEVER - I am personally fully and completely against abortion.
The solution to the issue, as with illegal immigration, lies at the ROOT of the problem - an unwanted pregnancy.
I see great amounts of time and money spent on the issue of abortion, but only a fraction of that spent to actually address the issue of unwanted pregnancies.
(For those of you that may find the following to be under the category of 'way too much information' please ignore the next paragraph.)
I began having sex in my mid-teens. At that time, I could not even buy condoms. There was no information readily available about pregnancy - birth control - rhythm methods, etc. The first time I used a condom, I had no idea how to apply it. I was a street-wise kid, but the information just was not available.
(Okay, you can open your eyes now.)
The point is - the solution to the issue of abortion is not to ban abortion but to EDUCATE young people in how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
When it comes to abortion - I fully and completely support a woman's right to choose - HOWEVER - I am personally fully and completely against abortion.
The solution to the issue, as with illegal immigration, lies at the ROOT of the problem - an unwanted pregnancy.
I see great amounts of time and money spent on the issue of abortion, but only a fraction of that spent to actually address the issue of unwanted pregnancies.
(For those of you that may find the following to be under the category of 'way too much information' please ignore the next paragraph.)
I began having sex in my mid-teens. At that time, I could not even buy condoms. There was no information readily available about pregnancy - birth control - rhythm methods, etc. The first time I used a condom, I had no idea how to apply it. I was a street-wise kid, but the information just was not available.
(Okay, you can open your eyes now.)
The point is - the solution to the issue of abortion is not to ban abortion but to EDUCATE young people in how to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
rm6046 said:
WSC: Well said, and I agree completely. I would add only this quotation I read somewhere and have no idea who first said it: "Live each day as if you will die tomorrow. Learn each day as if you will live forever."
Education is critical to all things.
Education is critical to all things.
Loading....