Recently, NEJM Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Drazen and his senior editors have shown a disturbing disregard for the journal's traditionally high standards. This became most apparent when, in 2013, they published a series of pieces that provided a misleading and unbalanced assessment of an unethical clinical trial involving more than 1,300 premature babies.
In the Republican debate last Wednesday, the two doctors on the stage dangerously hedged on vaccinations. Ben Carson and Rand Paul could have just said, "Get your kid vaccinated, it's important," and left it at that. Instead they pandered to the crowd. In doing so they violated their moral commitment.
Ultimately it comes down to a doctor or other practitioner standing with a patient, making decisions that are very personal. In that moment, as conflicted and complex as the issues are, doctors can help by asking themselves a personal question: What do I need to do to take care of this person before me?
SB 95 is an unwarranted and dangerous intrusion into the patient-physician relationship. The bill provides no medical or public health justification for outlawing the safest method of second-trimester abortion in the world today. Thus, one must conclude that the intent is to punish women by relegating them to obsolete care.