LVIPLehigh Valley Industrial Park, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
On the analysis and admission report, the following was noted "38-year-old patient, approximately 20-22 weeks pregnant according to fundal height, unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, admitted for a LVIP due to mental health.
The LVIP procedure was initiated with 400 [micro]g sublingual misoprostol every 3 h, in 5 doses.
to not give him up" (explaining how her family found out that she was pregnant and that she had been to hospital for a LVIP).
This complex clinical case can be analysed from multiple perspectives, including: a) the rights of the premature baby; b) the reproductive rights of the woman; c) LVIP in Colombia and the legal vacuum regarding the maximum age at which the procedure can be performed; d) the physicians performing the LVIP on a woman of advanced gestational age; e) what constitutes a "risk to mental health" in the context of an unwanted pregnancy; f) the rights of the child's father; and g) society, which may not understand the outcome of a LVIP procedure.
For practical reasons, the following two perspectives are analysed: the legal vacuum regarding maximum age at which the LVIP procedure can be performed, which led to the survival of a foetus subjected to a medical procedure designed to end the gestation, and what constitutes a risk to the mental health of the mother in the context of an unwanted pregnancy.
(8) The difficulty lies in the fact that it did not consider that, after a certain gestational age, the procedure could give rise to a premature birth instead of a therapeutic abortion, and the Technical Standard bans physicians from requesting meetings or asking for a second opinion because these are considered to be strategies that exclusively aim to deny or delay the LVIP procedure.