2008 Woodie Awards
Legally Approved Deception?
Jamrious Nickerson
Issue date: 10/15/07 Section: Op-Eds
- Page 1 of 1
Readers of the Star Ledger learned of a decision that would affect them either directly or indirectly. Like many in fervent support of the freedom of choice for women, some readers would deem the decision a victory. Other readers, loyal to morals or sincere beliefs, indignantly read the front-page headline "Court MD's need not say 'abortions kill.'"
Yet, history makes room for the unanimous ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that denotes doctors are under no obligation to inform women of the scientific fact that abortions are murders for which there is no legal consequence. Significantly, this ruling of the NJ Supreme Court is another victory that stems from the United States Supreme Court landmark ruling in favor of abortion in the case "Roe v. Wade."
In America, all medical professionals are legally sworn to honor and respect the rights of patients. Patients also have a legal right to dismiss or approve medical practices that are necessary or merely voluntary. These rights are indirectly acknowledged by the NJ Supreme Court in its unanimous decision.
Reporter Kate Coscarelli wrote, "It is well-established that a physician must give a woman information about the medical risks of terminating a pregnancy." Thus, the acknowledgments by the NJ Supreme Court contradict the aspect of their ruling that doctors have no requirement to "go further" to notify women of medical risks in regard to abortion procedures. What exactly does the NJ Supreme Court imply by the term "go further?"
The twenty-eight page ruling stems from a long term civil lawsuit. The lawsuit consists of a woman named Rosa Acuna suing her doctor, Sheldon Turks, on grounds that he dispensed insufficient medical information that caused her to engage in an abortion. In addition to Acuna's claim, she upholds that she suffered emotional distress subsequent to aborting her six to eight week old child as a result of the doctor's misleading information.
Dr. Turks says that he does not recall supplying unsubstantial medical information to Acuna. He would have informed her that a "seven week pregnancy is not a living human being." In spite of both the plaintiff and defendant's claim, the NJ Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit.
The actions by the NJ Supreme Court are more of an injustice to women than it is of victory. One way in which women are served injustice by the unanimous ruling is that doctors are legally permitted to limit the information it dispenses to its patients, specifically women in pursuit of an abortion. According to biological evidence, abortion is undeniably the termination of an existing human being and doctors should not be allowed to withhold this vital fact. Substantial information regarding abortions may aid women in making a more effective decision despite her circumstances.
In denying the biological fact that abortion is tantamount to murder, doctors are operating in deceit and manipulation in executing abortion procedures. As Acuna and her attorney would agree, the unanimous ruling by the NJ Supreme Court is to be overruled in favor of women nationwide by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Yet, history makes room for the unanimous ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that denotes doctors are under no obligation to inform women of the scientific fact that abortions are murders for which there is no legal consequence. Significantly, this ruling of the NJ Supreme Court is another victory that stems from the United States Supreme Court landmark ruling in favor of abortion in the case "Roe v. Wade."
In America, all medical professionals are legally sworn to honor and respect the rights of patients. Patients also have a legal right to dismiss or approve medical practices that are necessary or merely voluntary. These rights are indirectly acknowledged by the NJ Supreme Court in its unanimous decision.
Reporter Kate Coscarelli wrote, "It is well-established that a physician must give a woman information about the medical risks of terminating a pregnancy." Thus, the acknowledgments by the NJ Supreme Court contradict the aspect of their ruling that doctors have no requirement to "go further" to notify women of medical risks in regard to abortion procedures. What exactly does the NJ Supreme Court imply by the term "go further?"
The twenty-eight page ruling stems from a long term civil lawsuit. The lawsuit consists of a woman named Rosa Acuna suing her doctor, Sheldon Turks, on grounds that he dispensed insufficient medical information that caused her to engage in an abortion. In addition to Acuna's claim, she upholds that she suffered emotional distress subsequent to aborting her six to eight week old child as a result of the doctor's misleading information.
Dr. Turks says that he does not recall supplying unsubstantial medical information to Acuna. He would have informed her that a "seven week pregnancy is not a living human being." In spite of both the plaintiff and defendant's claim, the NJ Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit.
The actions by the NJ Supreme Court are more of an injustice to women than it is of victory. One way in which women are served injustice by the unanimous ruling is that doctors are legally permitted to limit the information it dispenses to its patients, specifically women in pursuit of an abortion. According to biological evidence, abortion is undeniably the termination of an existing human being and doctors should not be allowed to withhold this vital fact. Substantial information regarding abortions may aid women in making a more effective decision despite her circumstances.
In denying the biological fact that abortion is tantamount to murder, doctors are operating in deceit and manipulation in executing abortion procedures. As Acuna and her attorney would agree, the unanimous ruling by the NJ Supreme Court is to be overruled in favor of women nationwide by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Be the first to comment on this story