Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Irked by abortion bill, Va. senator adds rectal exams for men [View all]caseymoz
(5,763 posts)And orthopedic surgery without X-rays. And dental surgery without anesthetic. Your title point may be well taken, but for reasons other than your support statement, which is nonsense. My conjecture is that the sonogram might help prevent complications from an abortion in something like one in ten-thousand cases. So, literally speaking, it's only medically necessary in rare cases, you just don't know which cases those are until you've done the sonogram.
In the US, where you can't afford hundreds of dollars for the sonogram, a 1/10,000 chance of extra complications is the lesser of two evils, meaning, not medically necessary since the cost outweighs the risk. Whereas in Britain, where the public pays for medicine, and it's cheaper, the risk outweighs the cost. It's a different environment.
Also in Britain, it's the medical authorities, not the politicians who decided to require sonograms. Apparently, they feel that preventing the rare risk is worth the added public expenditure. Whereas in the US, our legislators feel that making women pay more, despite what doctors deem necessary, will discourage women from seeking abortions, and they are right.
And that's the difference between honor and dishonor, between public service and a diabolical scheme.