Abortion rights activists have a new “tool” in their tool box: “telemed”, or telemdicine, abortions.
Telemed abortions make a medical/chemical abortion (using the abortion pill RU 486) accessible on an exponential scale. With telemed abortions a pregnant woman can begin the abortion process after only a brief on-screen conference with the abortionist.
Located in another state, or even another country, the abortionist then clicks to remotely open a drawer (located where the woman is) which contains an individual dose of abortifacient pills, specifically designed to ‘snuff’ out the life growing inside her – essentially abortion by remote control. She is given the number of a round-the-clock hotline if she has problems.
How is this considered appropriate medical care? How can this be considered a legitimate application of what is now known as telemedicine?
Telemedicine uses modern technology to provide clinical health care at a distance and is on the rise both domestically and internationally. Often used in critical care and emergency situations, telemedicine can improve access to medical services (such as patient consultations and remote monitoring of vital signs) in remote areas.
The downsides of telemedicine include the cost of elaborate equipment and technical training. There is also greater potential for human error with telemedicine and an increased risk of compromising protected health information.
More importantly, however, “virtual” medical care means the loss of the personal, human aspect of the doctor/patient relationship.
Though there may be good uses of telemedicine, in the case of telemed abortions there is nowinner. The pre-born child is the obvious looser, but more and more mothers have found themselves on the losing side, as well.
Though medical abortions are often touted as a safer, more convenient solution when compared to surgical abortion, Jacqueline Harvey, of Reproductive Research Audit, disagrees. In fact, FDA reports reveal more than 2200 “adverse events” from medical abortions, among them death, since their approval in 2000.
Harvey says “The complications are greater for medical abortion than surgical” abortions. Responding to a study that claimed telemed abortions reduce patient complications, Harvey actually found an “an 11 percent increase in the likelihood of women suffering from complications. It’s an increased public health risk,” she continued.
Indeed. The medical abortion process can be painful, bloody and lengthy. Women have been hospitalized for hemorrhage, ruptured ectopic pregnancies and infections. Some women may require a surgical abortion when the medical/chemical method fails.
Reports show that in 2008 alone, medical abortions killed almost 200,000 pre-born children in the United States. Telemedicine’s ease and convenience will no doubt cause these numbers to soar even higher.
Originating in Iowa in 2008, telemed abortions caused a significant increase in the numbers of medical abortions in just the first year. Prayerfully, this may soon change.
The Iowa Board of Medicine recently voted to end telemed abortions in their state as early as November 2013. “How can any of us possibly find that a medical abortion performed over the internet is as safe as one provided by a physician in person?” asked Board Chairman Dr. Greg Hoversten.
Other states should be diligent about ending the practice of telemed abortion. It is vital that the public and our legislators are educated so that they might work to return telemedicine toward genuine and safe medical use.
We can’t allow abortion rights activists to further expand abortion services through telemed abortions – their newest “tool”.
Telemedicine, indeed medicine, should be used as a tool to save lives – not to end lives.