regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (06/12/85)
>From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) in <863@bunker.UUCP>: >>[...] >> But more than that, if there is money to be >>made with aborted fetuses, this presents a colossal conflict >>of interest to physicians. It is already more lucrative for >>a doctor to perform abortions than to take care of mother >>and child through a complete pregnancy. > >False. Abortions cost around $250. Hospital birth *alone* is >reported to cost at least $1000, to say nothing of pre-natal >visits, post-partum checkups, etc. Your conflict of interest >is a straw man. >Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Uh, Ken, not quite. Hospital birth is much more expensive to the consumer, but that doesn't mean it is more lucrative to the physician. Fer instance, my O.B. reports that insurance companies have just created a new catagory for Obstetricians -- the highest premium there is, even higher than brain surgeons. In California, the figure is something like $80,000 for this year, and they expect a 70% increase. Think how many babies they got to deliver just to meet insurance expenses (Califoria going rate for O.B. services only run approx $1900 - 2200). No slam intended -- You are usually on track. I don't know why fetal tissue isn't treated the same way that unused donated organs are. That would seem to me to more consistant.