C Bellieni
What comes to mind of a girl who learns that one or designed more with her brothers have been voluntarily removed? We can only imagine, but can not stay out: something so personal and intimate does not go unnoticed, and the recent reportage that were made sex-selective abortion to reduce the number fetuses in order to reduce the risks to the survivors, generate serious concerns. There are in fact even USA
of books to help parents to accept a miscarriage with siblings already born (for example, "No Smile Cookies Today" K Kennedy Tapp or "Molly's Rosebush" by J. Cohn), just because it is not an easy passage, which may indeed be wrong to censor. Imagine, then, when abortion is not spontaneous, as pointed out in 2006 Philip Ney and colleagues at the University of British Columbia, speaking clearly voluntary abortion survivor syndrome, which shows signs differ from siblings who had died of miscarriage. So it is important to remember that the tragedy of abortion not only affects the people directly affected, namely the child and the woman, but can also interfere with the lives of the children born then regularly.
This leads us to wonder about the health benefits that draws the woman who opts for a selective abortion, or what draws her brother who, after the abortion, rather than born. And to ask how to harmonize the deletion of a single fetus, what is more healthy, with current Italian legislation, Law 194.
Law 194 is made explicitly to rule the "abortion" and not "abortion", a word that the law never uses. Now, in the case fetal reduction, the woman's pregnancy is not interrupted while being consumed an abortion. And here is the point: if the law speaks only to decriminalize abortion (IVG), can hardly fall within its scope a project that does not interrupt the pregnancy, because "interrupted pregnancy" means that the woman is no longer pregnant. Who wrote the law refers to a phenomenon of on / off, black / white: pregnancy exists or does not exist. They wanted to say that pregnancy sometimes creates a greater risk to the health of non-pregnancy. It can be argued that those who wanted to decriminalize abortions actually wanted to decriminalize abortion; but this did not happen, according to the letter of the law, so much so that Article 6 and 7 of the law preventing abortion if the fetus is viable (can not kill the fetus in the uterus when it is viable to do so born and died around the law). But it can reduce fetal
be useful to the health of the mother or the twins, as required by the law 194? I think we should consider two points. First, that selective abortion can lead to death the other fetuses as a side effect, as reported in the journal Prenatal Diagnosis for example, in March 2002, and the mental health of a woman, maybe you received in vitro fertilization, is more damaged by a possible emergence of triplets or a possible loss of all three? Second, that selective abortion can have an impact on the psyche of children who survived, as well explains the psychiatrist who speaks French Benoit Bayle risk of survivor syndrome: a sense of omnipotence mixed with guilt (see 'sur embryon Le Divan ", Masson Ed) is an acceptable risk to the mental health of children and, consequently, the mother?
This sheds light on the wording of the law: an intervention on the pregnancy to continue making the same, but reduces the number of fetuses is simply not covered by Law 194, the legislature clearly did not consider a middle ground between "pregnancy" and "pregnancy", perhaps because it is very difficult to assess the imbalance between risk of depression from the birth of triplets and risk of depression from the loss of all three. And the law 194 in its spirit would provide the best way for women's health. This should be borne in mind to reflect on this practice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment