« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Re: Steevo's venal pursuit of Palin's womb and her parent-child relationship
Dr. Steevo; what's your full name, your license number, your disciplinary history and also kindly disclose your peer reviews. Any lawsuit history? Just want to make a point with those questions...their deeply personal nature.
I'm wary of a physician with a political axe to grind volunteering to analyze a patient he's never examined and draw factual conclusions without:
a. having examined the patient or being asked to by the patient;
b. conducting or reading her history and physical to include trends observed in past pregnancies and births;
c. access to her OB-GYN's medical records, readouts, films, notes etc.
d. spoken to her on the spot;
e. monitored her labs over time;
f. spoken with her other physicians;
g. and without an ethical doctor-patient relationship or history or a court subpoena to provide expertise beyond junk science speculation.
You haven't made any argument that adverse consequences came from Palin's course of action or that there is a link between the baby's Downs and Palin's actions. And that alone suggests that this is a venal, shrill and mean enterprise.
Anyone who understands the import of having family and friends around at birth for support; one's own physician on the scene; and the sense that one is home, barring any factual information requiring medical emergency measures, could see why a woman would want to have her child at home.
Without actual evidence, what I hear is that you are after some headlines to get political back pats from partisan pals. We don't even know if you're really a physician. Why would we believe it without some proof?
Another concern, even if you are a doc, is that in light of all of the above, how can we trust your judgment? You seem to be shooting from the hip without medical evidence about the patient behind your words. You have a political point to make, which is itself a conflict of interest with your medical opinion as if you have the basis to make a fully informed one.
It's also relevant whether you might perform abortions as part of your practice? It seems a reasonable question to ask you if you do since she is pro-life and such a fact would definitely suggest your bias. Do you?
Comments (47)
Dr. Steevo didn't mention any of his own patients and didn't diagnose anyone--what are you going to sue him about? He gave his professional opinionS. So what? Don't we all think we've got a lot to say?
August 31, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
tonalli, did you read his bio? He's not a doctor. By the way, thanks for the Palin tip. I think you were the first around here to spot her.
September 1, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, your hat is on too tight...
FYI: My bio is not a serious statement. How many rat farmers have you met?
September 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your pose as a physician is a serious statement? I'd believe you were a rat farmer before I'd believe you were a doctor. But before any of that, I'd believe you were a moron. Why not quit while you're ahead? You've made your point. Palin scares you.
September 1, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with people like you? I make a statement about something that is very obvious to me, or anyone with my experience. Then, people like you resort to ad hominem attacks for some unknown reason. I really don't care what you or anyone else on these boards "believe."
As far as "quitting while you're ahead" - you are the one who actually thought my profile was a serious statement. It seems I have a pretty good lead on you in the "quitting while you're ahead" department.
If you can't argue in an intelligent manner as to why I may be incorrect in my logic, then I would suggest you just take your fingers off the keyboard the be quiet.
September 1, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ad hominem? I'd have to consider you a person. Your post was pure sleaze. I called you on it there, and I'm calling you on it here. No physician would write the crap you wrote. I don't know who or what you are, but I know you're not a doctor. Crawl out of here.
September 1, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike, You are doing the blog equivalent of a SLAPP suit against Steevo.
August 31, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never suited, tonalli & Lux. Don't even want him to spill all that info unless he wants to substantiate his qualifications and lack of bias.
He purported his medical background and expertise, including his medical opinion. So it was more like a set of questions in a hearing about expertise issues. Is he really an expert? Does he have a sufficient basis to offer his professional opinion?
Then we talked about his likely bias, something that would be brought out in trial.
August 31, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wary of a physician with a political axe to grind volunteering to analyze a patient he's never examined and draw factual conclusions
Mike7Woodson - are you wary of politicians who have a political axe to grind about the rights of women to make their own reproductive decisions? Politicians who inject government law enforcement into the health care decisions of women without:
a. having examined the patient or being asked to by the patient;
b. conducting or reading her history and physical to include trends observed in past pregnancies and births;
c. access to her OB-GYN's medical records, readouts, films, notes etc.
d. spoken to her on the spot;
e. monitored her labs over time;
f. spoken with her other physicians;
g. and without an ethical doctor-patient relationship or history or a court subpoena to provide expertise beyond political advantage.
Have you ever been pregnant yourself?
August 31, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Euphemizing the stabbing in the neck of babies being held inside the womb by doctors and the use of abortion as mercenary upwardly mobile birth control in the great majority of cases as "reproductive decisions" is just whacky.
The reproductive decision was the one risking a child growing by the conduct of dad and mom, whoever they are. Once their "reproductive decision" to risk the growing human life within mom was made, then there are no more reproductive decisions that involve de-production, or, the destruction of that life produced. It's an oxymoron to call destruction of human life in the womb "reproductive" anything unless it actually produces something. It destroys, wastes and kills, it does not reproduce.
Your rhetoric seems to be the language that would be spoken in the state described by the album name produced by Jazz artist Jean Luc Ponty in 1980: "Civilized Evil."
August 31, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't answer the question: Mike7Woodson-Have you ever been pregnant?
Frankly people like you (especially males) who think they have the right to force all women even in the first trimester to term are little better than rapists. It is none of your god damn business-why don't you adopt one of the thousands of kids in foster care who need a home?
Abortions are best prevented by preventing unwanted pregnancies. Idiots like yourself are often against birth control and Republicans do not even support health care coverage for all US children. Abortion to Republicans is just a political wedge issue and nothing else.
If Palin wants to make other women's choice a political issue and trumpet the details of her recent birth to the news media than she is fair game to second guess on her behavior that day.
Keep it up Steevo.
August 31, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't need to be pregnant to disagree with abortion. That is seriously your requirement? To give away my reason on that basis would be to intellectually castrate myself as you have done to yourself here on this issue in your post. Hence your emotional outburst and attack on the person instead of dealing with the facts.
By your reasoning, no one who has not fought in a war could vote on issues concerning war. Your argument is too weak to be considered seriously.
You falsely assume I support criminal sanctions on women for abortion when there are much wiser and more effective policy solutions for ridding society of the abortion excuse for keeping women inequal in pay and so forth. Abortion is merely a means to falsely mollify women with the pretense to a "right" which ultimately only leaves them worse off with respect to choices, equality in pay and benefits, and what should be a much greater status as stay-at-home mothers with careers at law. Worse it kills a human life.
Present motherhood is as essential as national military service, and while those in the natl guard have their jobs protected by law as long as they must be at war, women don't have job protection to be present for their children beyond several weeks. What? That's a sick, corporate fascist anti-social ethos you and your like-minded abortion advocates never seem to address, and consequently, society drifts further from basic moral health. And that undermines the many other elements of tangible health related to moral fiber and constitution.
You don't whack the innocent as ransom to get rights. You defend them and use their numbers in fighting for greater, more humane rights. As abortionists generally implode and go into a depression about "unwanted children" I see them doing nothing whatsoever to change the sorry anti-ethos that has gone septic in so many adult minds that we need eugenics to keep the world from crashing in instead of better education, moral fiber in society and people willing to fight for it. If political platforms and leaders and supporters are afraid to fight for what's right, of course they will find all kinds of evils to be necessary to make worse what they think they're avoiding. I'm sorry but I'm tired of your manure for reason on this issue.
Those who won the vote for women were those who worked within relationships to men which respected men, not those which vilified men for their inability to be pregnant even though they are involved or uninvolved in the equation in various ways. The vilification of men approach merely insures male flight from responsibility to women and children and makes them covertly tougher on women when women frankly need men to be their fellow partners, team members and protectors.
August 31, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. You are anti-choice. You think that a 2-celled zygote is a human being. I guess you think that is "moral." Guess who the biggest abortionist of all times is?
Answer:
Mother Nature, or god (whichever way you prefer it).
If every sperm and egg that connected actually implanted (for the sake of the sanctity of human life) there would be no such thing as Infertility as a specialty of medicine. The world would be overrun with people that were uncared for.
OK, I know where you're coming from; I just think you are seriously mistaken. The problem with republicans like yourself is that your only devotion is to the fetus; When a baby is born and takes its first breath it is a living, breathing human. That is when you call off all the support and tell us all that we have to be responsible for ourselves -- even 17 year-olds who have children suddenly are abandoned by your hypocritical party -- why? Because it suits your objectives. You need ignorant people to vote for republicans (your voting base) so that those who profit from your policies (your financial base) can continue to profit.
I guess we have to agree to disagree.
September 1, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a GOP'er, and it depends which choice you're talking about as to whether I'm anti- or pro-.
September 2, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about the argument made by AlterNet:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/97068/questions_raised:_does_sarah_palin_really_have_a_5th_child_%5Bphotos_%2B_video%5D/
Like that one better?
This is a huge deal for she is either lying or has the worst judgment imaginable. Sorry...this definitely applies.
August 31, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Refer you to the question of medical evidence you or anyone else has about the child. I assume you're well schooled on all the child's records? Ultrasounds? Consults? Evaluations? The severity of the Downs? Second opinions?
No. You all are just wagging your invective in the wind without medical data about the boy.
August 31, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike7Woodson, I have a question. We all know that Sara Palin is as fiercely anti-abortion, as you are, and that she was determined to have her Baby despite finding that he would be born with downs Syndrome.
So what I want to know is -- since she doesn't believe in abortion and would never have one under any circumstances -- why did she undergo tests (I assume ammiocentesis) to find out the status of her unborn fetus? Why would she want to know?
Just asking because it seems odd to me. Since you're so well versed in the feelings of right to lifers, I figured you could explain it.
August 31, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anna,
As I understand it, amnioscentisis is not required to become aware of Downs markers, but some say it is conclusive if there's doubt. Yet it also carries a small but not insignificant risk to the unborn. They didn't necessarily need to have an AS done if their ultrasounds and tests showed enough to be certain within a degree of accuracy.
Why would they want to know in advance? For preparation mentally, emotionally, researching how to care for a special needs child, that sort of thing.
September 1, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Best test is now nucal fold. Non-invasive. Ultrasound. Anybody who has had a baby lately would know that.
September 1, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. She would want to know so she could be prepared to take care of the infant.
So, when the infant is 4 months old, her 17 year-old is pregnant and not married, she is under investigation for corruption, she has a son going off to Iraq, and she has another young daughter, she accepts the job of running for VP?
This woman is either crazy or nuts; one or the other/ you choose.
September 1, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Best test is now nucal fold. Non-invasive. Ultrasound. Anybody who has had a baby lately would know that.
September 1, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Best test is now nucal fold. Non-invasive. Ultrasound. Anybody who has had a baby lately would know that.
September 1, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And two seconds later, it is still the best test. I think the server is falling down under the heavy ethical load today. Sorry for the multiple posts, cluttering up your thread.
Choice is hard. State rights are hard. The politics of choice are hard. We need to cut through the judicial distractions and defeat anti-choice laws at the polls whenever they rear their ugly heads.
September 1, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are tough cases and easy cases. As someone who, as a wrote elsewhere, had my water break early on, I know that it is serious. You break your foot, you get a cast. You have a bladder infection, you take antibiotics. Your water breaks, you get to a hospital stat.
While most people are arguing that this is proof of her bad judgement, I am thoroughly convinced it didn't happen, that her daughter had the baby. It's outrageous behavior.
I'm a lawyer, not a doctor. This is like citing hornbook law - everyone knows it, don't waste the courts time. Or like taking judicial notice. Actually, if this was a court case, that particular fact, that if a woman's water breaks, she goes directly to the hospital, is most likely something a judge could take judicial notice of. You wouldn't have to get a an expert witness to testify to such a commonly known fact.
In fact, steevo post could have been lifted from mine, wherein I passed along what my doctor told me. Furthermore, in the article in the Anchorage Times (?), the reporter got a second opinion from another doctor, who ALSO said the exact same thing.
It's a simple fact, biting you in the ass. Accept it.
Sorry, one last time. It is such an outlandish decision that I do not believe a word of it.
August 31, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
MimiBird,
The simple fact is that you do not have any of the actual medical data about the boy Trig. Do you?
And if you do not, what good is your opinion? The boy is born, alive and well other than the Downs challenges that were well considered, accepted and embraced.
And the court would also likely deem a party stipulation that Ms. Palin went to the hospital after her water broke and that the real issue to decide would be how soon, given the actual medical advice and the info it was based on, should that have been.
But again, you don't have that info. And without evidence, you don't make a good showing in court. And you certaintly don't preserve error if you didn't proffer your evidence and get a no-evidence summary judgment.
Facts are difficult things for the overconfident to deal with. And that you sure are.
August 31, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do hate to hog up space by repeating myself, but I'll be brief, since I posted this elsewhere.
No matter how many children you have had, once it becomes clear that labor has started, you have no hint of a clue how it is going to progress. No idea. None. No sane person would choose to get on a plane after her water broke.
You are making the wrong argument to me. You seem to think someone is suggesting that this has something to do with the down's syndrome. Noone suggested that.
If you are directing your comment at me, the fact that the baby is fine, that the doctor gave her okay are irrelevent. Because I am convinced it is so outlandish that it did not happen at all.
I'm just saying. Some people have concluded it proves she has bad judgement. I believe she is lying. If you want to come at me, at least argue the right issue.
August 31, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi MimiBird
I just got here and I wish Mike7 shared you concern about hogging the comments. Arguing with a closed mind is like arguing with a stone wall
September 1, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And the court would also likely deem a party stipulation that Ms. Palin went to the hospital after her water broke and that the real issue to decide would be how soon, given the actual medical advice and the info it was based on, should that have been."
Sigh.
You are coming to a gunfight with a water pistol. I am telling you, there are facts that a judge can accept without an offer of proof. It's called judicial notice. There are facts that are so commonly known that it is a waste of everyone's time to prove them, and I can say with a high degree of confidence that when a woman's water breaks, the only proper course of conduct is to get to a hospital ASAP is one of those facts.
What I find disturbing, is you are arguing facts that are not in dispute. It does not appear that you have read either the newspaper account or Palin's own account of what happened. Her own version is that her water broke, she gave the speech, spoke to her doctor on the phone, boarded a plane, landed in Seattle, flew to Anchorage, drove 45 miles, THEN went to a hospital.
My point is, there is no doctor in the world who is going to give medical clearance to a 44 year old woman, in preterm labor, carrying an at-risk child to fly without being seen. There is nothing that could be learned from a mere phone call. That once the process of labor begins, you do not have any idea how it is going to progress, and no woman would leave herself so vulnerable as to board a plane.
I am also speaking from personal experience. I was having contractions for 53 hours. When they were 3 minutes apart, I went to the hospital, where they were about 5 minutes apart. They sent me home. About 3 hours later, when my contractions were 15 minutes apart, my water broke. I called the hospital. They said get here now. They want you to have the baby no more than 24 hours after your water breaks. They monitored me closely, and decided to take the baby at hour 19. (Heck, I've gone this far, I have to finish. What happened next was they brought me to the delivery room to give me a saddle block and use forceps. I got the image of my perfect baby with big ugly forceps scars, after 72 friggin' hours of labor, and much to everyone's surprise finished the deed myself.]
Sorry about that, I hated having half a story. You know, maybe I should go to high schools and tell this story, complete with the gory details. That might make a dent in teen pregnancies. I adore my son, but I made damn sure I never got pregnant again.
Back to the topic. My point is, and you really didn't address it with the stuff about medical histories yadda yadda, is that I find it so incredible that, well, it's just not credible. So for the three women here and our 19 pregnancies, we say she is a liar.
August 31, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
*Sigh*
Mimi, as much ammo as you lack in that gun, I'd say a water pistol is all that is needed to rust the BB barrel shut.
You didn't read my response or you would have seen that I impliedly recognized that judicial notice can establish facts unlikely to be disputed, such as weather on a particular day or that the emergency broadcast system goes off each week at a particular time.
Yet if facts are disputable, such as would require the putting on of evidence to show medical context of Palin's decisions and her doctor's advice, then judicial notice is not likely going to gainsay testimony by the doctor, Palin and reviewing experts. Those disputed issues are not the usual candidates for judicial notice. This includes the history of Ms. Palin's deliveries of her other children and whether they were predictable and consistent. Apparently, all went well, so don't you think you ought to wait for more facts than what you get from a news report?
Also, an indisputable fact that doesn't apply to the given fact situation and circumstantial evidence, can always be recognized, but it doesn't mean it will be relevant or material to the established issues.
August 31, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to pass this along, even though this is so convenient you all will probably think I'm lying. Me, I'm against abortion, never had one, no longer an issue. But I believe in a woman's right to choose.
My mother, however, is inches away from being one of those pro-life protesters. A friend of hers stopped by today. These are 2 hardcore, mass every day Catholics. They have 18 (yes, EIGHTEEN) children between them. They would love to have a pro-life candidate.
I told them the story. They laughed - scoffed, really - at the prospect that there was anything true about the story.
August 31, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can respect reasoned doubt about the story, however, it's still not based on possession of actual medical evidence of the pre-natal health, severity of the Downs, and so on. That info is needed or else we are dealing with speculation-propaganda.
August 31, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am such a fish - I just keep taking the bait.
:I can respect reasoned doubt about the story, however, it's still not based on possession of actual medical evidence of the pre-natal health, severity of the Downs, and so on. That info is needed or else we are dealing with speculation-propaganda."
I can now see our divurgence. You are willing to accept that there was something in the medical history that could justify the decision. I, to the best of knowledge, belief, information and experience know that whatever happens in the pregnancy is irrelevent to what happens in labor and delivery. They are two seperate medical events. I had a totally unremarkable pregnancy, but the labor and delivery were less than ideal.
In fact, this happens all the time; you have a healthy baby, but something goes wrong during birth, and you have a dead baby or a baby with cerebral palsy. Or even, a dead mother. I was shocked, but recently here in the Tampa Bay area, a very healthy, well-off woman died in childbirth. She bled to death. Your medical history means nothing once you are in labor. Sorry, that's an overstatement. A good medical history is not an assurance that all will go well.
August 31, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
True that labor and delivery can bring in new factors. Mom's fear of unfamiliar docs; bad reps at other hospitals as to Obstetrics; trust in one's doc; family support ... lots figures into the mom's concern.
Now your theory and analysis that this wasn't even Palin's child but her daughter's might prove true. I don't know. Evidence may tell, however, even if true, her willingness to protect her daughter will probably not hurt her. BTW, I compliment your reading of the incredibility as alerting you to the possibility that Palin's not the mom. That's good analytic thinking and I should've recognized it earlier. I was too busy firing away.
August 31, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Steevo is a troll. So is John Nail. Their posts are misogynistic smears that should not be permitted at this site. No crime has been committed, no fake-pregnancy scenario has been proved. Nothing. There is no story.
No one vets fathers or male candidates this way. This is misogynistic and sick. It's additionally disgusting because it involves a child, who is an innocent bystander. No legitimate, ethical doctor would publish such hypothetical garbage about someone's child. Doctors are scientists, not storytellers.
August 31, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eloquent and concise. D'accord.
August 31, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give us a fucking break. Being anti-choice, as Woodson is, is misogyny. When you can get pregnant, Mike, come back with an opinion. Until then, fuck off.
September 1, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
libgirl:
Sounds like a guilty conscience lashing out.
Glad my blog here could be a vehicle for you to vent. Angry girls pull out the long knives whenever they feel that they're inconvenienced by another co-equal person. Oh, but if that person can't get pregnant, or is dependent like an unborn human baby, out come the daggers to cut off the source of your anger and discomfort?
You think that's a humane way to go through life?
September 3, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! YOU think someone is a troll?
Psssssssssssssst: your gasket blew!
September 1, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I confess. I have been caught! I am a Pro-Abortion Troll sent to TPM on the express orders of my superior officers; to establish a covert identity with the intention of augmenting our master plan to abort humans out of existence.
Our mission statement is as follows:
Abortions – Any Time, Any Place, Any Where – whether you desire one or not!
Yes, I know, I was pulling for a slightly more subtle mission statement, but you don’t argue with authority!
I have been trained in ancient, obscure, and mostly forgotten methods of influencing my brethren through random and intermittent postings on political blogs. Yes, these techniques are ancient, yet blogs are a new phenomenon. Let’s just say… we knew they were coming someday and leave it at that…
As for Sir Mike, Seventh Son of the Wood, I am certainly concerned about his mental health. I am not sure why, but for some reason thinks he is in a court of law. That or he is just an RPG’er stuck in his Dragnet World (just the facts, ma’am). I would give my opinion more in depth, but I fear a virtual subpoena and lawsuit at the 11th TPM Circuit Court of Left-Leaning-Blog-Ville.
Alas and woe! My mission is ended by the one who is preparing to rupture the sealant device!
Now I must go! It is my turn to bring the coffee and donuts to my local Misogynists Union meeting. For my wife’s sake, I hope she did a better job of grinding those beans and sifting the flour, not to mention cleaning the fryer. I can’t tolerate another embarrassing donut episode among my brethren – there will be consequences!
August 31, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! The humor is welcome. It is especially apt considering your assuming the role of uber-doctor expert advisor to all dwelling in the jursidiction of the TPM Courts. Yes, you ride into the courts claiming to have figured out the "real-deal" about Ms. Palin and child even though you don't have a doctor-patient relationship with them; haven't consulted with their doctor; don't have their medical charts and test results; no history and physical and so on. It is just the silliest thing and so I join you in laughter and incredulity at your post.
August 31, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wouldn't be able to read the chart if he had it. He's an imposter.
September 1, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably right, Bill. That could be illegal if someone acted on the medical info he typed in, wouldn't it? Not that anything he said is of that nature. I don't know.
September 3, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi MimiBird
I just got here and I wish Mike7 shared you concern about hogging the comments. Arguing with a closed mind is like arguing with a stone wall
September 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call it hosting, not hogging. If #'s of comments were limited, you might make sense, but they are not. Feel free to touch on as many angles as you can.
September 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call it hosting, not hogging. If #'s of comments were limited, you might make sense, but they are not. Feel free to touch on as many angles as you can.
September 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone thought to call Bill Frist on this? Maybe he could watch a few minutes of videotape and make a diagnosis.
September 1, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your rhetoric seems to be the language that would be spoken in the state described by the album name produced by Jazz artist Jean Luc Ponty in 1980: "Civilized Evil."
Even if you're getting paid by the word, surely you can do better than that.
September 1, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment