Monday, February 19, 2007


Picking up on something from the comments, I'm curious if the medical establishment's obsessive concern with potential fetuses is a relatively new thing or not. I gather that when obtaining just about any prescription or medical treatment which could impact fetal health in any tiny way, women have to convince doctors that not only are they not pregnant, but that they couldn't possibly be. This of course requires having abstained or abstaining from intercourse for a nontrivial amount of time.

Ladies, is this new? be clear, I'm not talking about inquiring about whether it's been a bit long since your last period or other evidence that you genuinely "might be" pregnant, I'm talking about a somewhat lower standard here, that you "could be."

...comments seem to be mixed about this. Hmm. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily wrong, and certainly women should be informed of all potential side effects for drugs and procedures. I guess the issue is that there's a big gray area between "necessary" and voluntary procedures and drugs, both diagnostic and actual treatment, and so there's going to be a balancing issue between concerns for fetal wellbeing and the health of the mother. Is there a greater willingness to delay treatment over a potential pregnancy than previously?