While the whole existence of "informed consent" sounds pretty paternal to me,

You don't really mean that, do you? If you're having a surgical procedure, don't you want to be told all the risks and benefits of it? I'm completely against informed consent laws for abortion that provide irrelevant or false information; it should be the same as for any other surgical procedure. But I hope you don't actually think that informed consent laws about medical procedures generally are "paternalistic;" they evolved because of patients being damaged by procedures they'd consented to without knowing the risks, or procedures, such as forced sterilization, that they hadn't consented to at all.

I was referring to informed consent abortion laws specifically.

Abortion is still a medical procedure and thus informed consent is necessary. This would be true even if they were as celebrated in society as breast augmentations.

What THEY are doing is wrong because they are skewing the facts to push a political agenda. It's not about the informed consent at all, it's about trying to discourage women from making that choice.

It depends upon what information - or misinformation - a patient or prospective patient is given.

If there were no requirement to get informed consent for abortion then a clinician could for example abort the wanted child of a learning disabled woman after telling her that she's just having a check up. I think there has to be a duty to secure informed consent. The worry about abortion is that 'information' may include all kinds of biased misinformation.

Agree with the comments posted. I am FLOORED by the informed consent requirements for abortions.

I am sorry to go OT a little bit, but I read a readers write in my hometown paper, and someone wrote in opposing vaccines (hpv, probably) b/c the 'dirty underbelly of the vaccine industry' is that it uses aborted fetuses to make vaccines.

I can't find ANY TRUTH to this other than on anti-choice web sites.

Can anyone direct me to a link that addresses it more directly? I reckon the writer means 'stem cells' but 'aborted fetus juice' just sounds so much more to the point, don't you think?

Oy! I'm not saying that informed consent shouldn't exist AT ALL when a woman is seeking an abortion, I'm referring to paternal language that comes with specific informed consent laws on abortion that are passed which not only misinform but imply that women aren't capable of making their own decisions, like the already mentioned Kennedy's statement on the Federal Abortion Ban.

I am not sure (is there a doctor in the house?), but I think that in the US the ethical guidelines for doctors already require them to inform the patients of the risks and benefits associated with surgical and other medical procedures.
Informed consent laws are paternalistic. I have yet to hear of an "informed consent law" that is not about abortion. When Congress starts passing informed consent laws for procedures other than abortion, then I will be willing to say that this is about ensuring patients that they have the best, most up-to-date medical information. Until then, I am totally with Vanessa on this; these laws are about making sure our poor little women don't hurt themselves because they cannot possibly know what they are doing when they get an abortion.

Second Hand Sally,

There are informed consent laws for myriad medical procedures. I have had lots of surgeries, CT scans, etc, in the last 3 years, and pretty much anything I've had to go for the hospital form, I have to sign special informed consent forms. Of course, I don't have to call 24-hours ahead of time and listen to a recording, then bet taken into a special room to talk to someone face-to-face about it.

BabyPop,
Yeah, that's what I mean; there are extra steps in informed consent laws that are aimed only at abortion procedures. It would be different if these extra steps were also being legally added to other medical procedures (It would add credibility to lawmakers contentious that they are these steps are to actually inform the patient).

Also, the existence of an onerous informed-consent process, aside from the normal medical information that doctors would provide and get the patient to sign off on for any other surgery, makes the whole procedure seem sleazier. I'm guessing it reminds the patient of all the sleazy fine-print disclaimers that we run into so often (credit card agreements, software installation, employment contracts) and that usually precede getting screwed over in some way. It could easily be enough to make an uneasy patient change her mind.

One more thing, I still don't think that there are law mandating that hospitals have to get informed consent for other medical procedures. I think hospitals do seek informed consent for other medically procedures because of (1) the ethical guidelines of doctors and (2) to protect themselves from lawsuits.
In my original comment what I was trying to say is that the fact that lawmakers have written a law requiring informed consent for abortion procedures (when informed consent is already going to happen because of the two factors mentioned above) and that they don't write law for other kinds of procedures, indicates that there's something else going on here (as I think we all know) other than trying to give the patient information.

And now I will shut-up.

Informed consent is just another hoop you have to jump through to obtain an abortion. Having gone through the procedure, my state required me to listen to a canned "informed consent" speech over the phone 24 hours prior to the procedure. I guess the 24 hour waiting period was so you can reflect on the seriousness of your situation or something. The speech was delivered to me over the phone by some anonymous person who knows nothing about my medical condition. It definitely was read to me in a manner similar to reading of your last rites – as if I were a criminal! The speech had nothing to do with honestly explaining to me the procedure – it’s purpose was to make me feel guilty and change my mind. That – combined with the fact that you have to wait 24 hours between the speech and procedure – makes informed consent just another BS obstacle that gets in the way of your right to choose. In my experience, no other medical procedure comes even close to being treated in the same way.

If there were no requirement to get informed consent for abortion then a clinician could for example abort the wanted child of a learning disabled woman after telling her that she's just having a check up. I think there has to be a duty to secure informed consent.

Couple of points: 1. How often do you think something like this happens, really? 2. Another law making it harder for a woman to get an abortion is not going to stop some psycho clinician from doing something like that. 3. Why wouldn't this apply to all medical procedures? Shouldn't everyone be completely informed before consenting to a procedure of any kind? Oh, but wait, they are!

These "informed consent" laws for abortion procedures only seek to make the process of getting an abortion harder (by implying that women are too dumb to truly understand what an abortion entails or why they want the procedure); they do not "protect women" or anyone else.

Secondhandsally, like BabyPop said, there most certainly are laws mandating hospitals get informed consent for other medical procedures. I do a lot of work and research on the policies and procedures of HIV testing and have been a part of compiling and updating maps on state laws regarding HIV testing. Informed consent is a HUGE issue when it comes to HIV testing. There are different kinds of informed consent in regards to this procedure - opt-in vs. opt-out testing. And then when laws mandate opt-out testing, does the patient have to give written or only oral consent?

See here for a map of the U.S. in which all laws around HIV testing (including informed consent) are given for every state.

I just wanted to point out that informed consent IS an issue for other medical procedures, but I've not come across any other informed consent policies and procedures that treat patients like ignorant children the way informed consent laws for abortion do, which is what Vanessa posted about.

Yeah, I hadn't thought of the HIV testing laws.

I still don't think that changes the basic point (that the informed consent that is used for other medical procedures would be entirely sufficient for abortion procedures and there is no need to mandate additional steps).

One more thing, I still don't think that there are law mandating that hospitals have to get informed consent for other medical procedures. I think hospitals do seek informed consent for other medically procedures because of (1) the ethical guidelines of doctors and (2) to protect themselves from lawsuits.
In my original comment what I was trying to say is that the fact that lawmakers have written a law requiring informed consent for abortion procedures (when informed consent is already going to happen because of the two factors mentioned above) and that they don't write law for other kinds of procedures, indicates that there's something else going on here (as I think we all know) other than trying to give the patient information.

Now I get you. It's the extra step. And you're absolutely right. I don't know if informed consent is a law or just an ethical guideline, but let's say it isn't a law. It would still be an ethical guideline. All doctors would still have informed consent papers for people to sign before medical procedures (or, in the case of mental health, counseling or research). Why the extra law specifically singling out abortion?

General informed consent for medical procedures is mandated by statute or precedent in every state.

What. The. Fuck.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hHbhKzL-q6SbazRgpk6_Ino2YPZwD8ST5NG80

Informed consent laws are paternalistic. I have yet to hear of an "informed consent law" that is not about abortion.

Okay, here's one for you: informed consent for using anaesthised patients for teaching pelvic exams.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=613941

Virginia recently prohibited doctors in the state from performing pelvic exams on female patients without telling them first:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173352001169&path

Sooooo paternalistic. So bad for women.
/sarcasm

Umm, oenophile, there is a BIG difference is between knowing someone is going to be poking around your privates while you're out cold, and being told you're a silly child who can't make her own medical decisions about abortion (ignoring the problems with the "information" that they give you under these laws).

Umm, MicheyD, you're missing the point.

The original theory was that ALL informed consent = paternalism.

If a person shows a SINGLE instance in which informed consent is not paternalistic (and actually conforms with that person has demonstrated that the argument is b.s.

That's what I did.

I'm sorry that you need those things spelled out for you, but hey, there's a lot of slow people on the internet.

Oenophile, that was not Vanessa's point - she even clarified that the point at 10:32.

I'm sorry that you think you have to be nasty and condescending, but hey, there's a lot of people like you on the internet.

err, that it was the point, before oenophile jumps on that and calls me "slow" again, because ooooh, what a compelling insult!

Last time I checked, I made a VERY, VERY valid point: that informed consent isn't paternalistic; in many situations, it is EXTRAORDINARILY helpful, necessary, and promotes feminist ideals.

Let's think of the world without any informed consent. Let's think about a world without any waiting periods for surgery. I cannot walk into ANY surgeon's office in this country, except an abortion provider, and get same-day service. Why is abortion the exception?

Let's consider the fact that Vanessa's entire premise is crap. The thought that "the legislature is saying I need this protection, therefore, I'm being patronised" doesn't hold water in any other area, so why should it hold water here? Are hate speech laws paternalistic?

FYI: Maybe I'm completely cranky about this because I have a huge stack of medical forms on my desk, next to the computer. I'm required to have someone witness the page in which I allow my doctor to talk to people other than myself about my condition (HIPAA regulation, I presume); I can't simply write their names in and call it a day. No, someone needs to certify that I signed that page without coercion. Soooo paternalistic.

Maybe it's because I'm seeing a breast care specialist... and it's boobs, and women have them... so it's gotta be paternalism, right?

Oh, let's see, another one of my fun forms: certifying that I understand the nature of the procedures to be used (my small little girl brain must not get it, right?); that I've had an opportunity to ask questions (because I'm a weak, easily coerced woman, right?); that my information may be released as medically necessary; that, anyone is exposed to my blood, I don't mind them testing myself or them for blood borne disease (because I'm a dirty slut); and oh, how's this one: "I am aware that the practice of medicine is not an exact science and I acknowledge that no guarantees have been made to me...." (becuase I think my male doctor is a God and can heal magically).

Telling you. It deals with breasts, and it's spelling things out in detail, so it MUST be paternalism. Maybe all that fine print is meant to scare me off so I won't get treatment.

Alternatively, it's a stack of paperwork faxed to my school, a week and a half before my appointment, that is needed for a procedure that is significantly less invasive and problematic than an abortion (ultrasound and perhaps a core-needle biopsy). To a large extent, there is a one-size-fits-all approach because of economy: do you really want to have 15 different forms on file for what is substantially the same procedure?

I do find it humourous that Guttmacher steers clear of mentioning the risks of abortion, nor does it explain what these "inflammatory" statements are. Yes, women who abort are more likely to commit suicide than their never-pregnant peers and their peers who give birth. We know this. We know that abortion increases a risk of infertility (if done wrong); that 10% of women need follow-up care after a surgical abortion; that 2% of women who take RU-486 haemorrhage enough to need surgery; and that it increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy.

Is anyone seriously thinking that women's "right to choose" is so sacrosanct that she shouldn't even know that?

---
My favourite part of all this: if anyone else says that women are weak little creatures who would be put off by signing their names more than once, they would get reamed into an oblivion (and rightly so. I would help.). But when it comes to the all-sacred abortion, feminists say that women are too weak to have these regulations imposed on us.

Are you all so lucky that you've never gone to the doctor for anything else and don't understand that this is normal?

/feminist rant

oenophile,
I was wrong in my first comment as many other commenters have pointed out; there are informed consent laws for other medical procedures.

The point of my first comment though (as I attempted to clarify in subsequent comments) was the abortion is being singled out and informed consent laws aimed at abortion traditional create additional steps to the process of getting informed consent. In my view, these additional steps are not about better informing the patient, but rather about adding more "red tape" to the abortion procedure. The fact that women have to go through more steps to be "informed" about getting an abortion than they do to have their leg amputated, for example, suggests that either we think the legislature has to *force* women to really think about their decision before they have an abortion, as opposed to other medical procedures. Or it's just another means to make getting an abortion more difficult.

These laws don't worry me because I don't think women who are seeking an abortion have the strength to sign a few forms. They worry me because I believe they may run the risk of placing "an undue burden" on some women. Imagine for example that you are in a violent relationship and pregnant. You have managed to make an appointment to have an abortion and have made elaborate plans to have your abortion on such and such a day. The law requires that you phone into the clinic and listen to a message 24 hours before your abortion. However, your violent partner has restricted your phone use and watches your every move. The additional step of having to call the clinic and listen to this message certainly makes it more difficult for you to get an abortion (in a way that signing a form before the procedure wouldn't).

In addition, if the legislature creates too many hoops and too much paperwork, it won't just be hard for the women who are trying to obtain an abortion; it will also be hard for the clinics that are trying to provide abortion. Each piece of paperwork processes costs money and takes time, both of which clinics are already short on in many areas.

I do not think that informed consent in and of itself is bad. (As I said in my first comment, informed consent is [or should be] part of a doctor's ethical conduct.) I think "informed consent" that is about blocking access is bad.

BabyPop,

Re: aborted fetuses in vaccines, that's only true if you're counting chicken fetuses. Vaccines are killed virus (or bacterial antigen), often in an egg based medium. (Hence the warnings to people allergic to eggs.) So, nope, no human fetuses in immunizations. Just eggs and dead germs.

Back on topic, though, yeah, some of that stuff goes way beyond actual informed consent and into pressuring someone's medical decision, which is unethical as hell.

The original informed consent laws in Texas were actually in response to the concerns surrounding hysterectomies and in *reaction* to the paternalistic overuse of surgery on women.

I prefer to consider what I do "maternalistic," BTW

The fact that women have to go through more steps to be "informed" about getting an abortion than they do to have their leg amputated, for example, suggests that either we think the legislature has to *force* women to really think about their decision before they have an abortion, as opposed to other medical procedures. Or it's just another means to make getting an abortion more difficult.

The fact? Fact? Sally, dear, unless it's an emergency (at which point, you really need to consider an emergency abortion v. an emergency amputation), it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more difficult to get any other surgical procedure than it is to get an abortion.

Follow me around for the next few weeks. I cannot walk into a doctor's office and demand a mastectomy same-day. Abortion, however - heck, y'all consider it oppressive if the government doesn't pay for it.

Learn about the medical profession; there are double standards, and it involves the fact that abortion on demand is a reality.