Boiling Point

Okay, now that I've started vent-blogging about stories in the Swedish news, it's getting difficult to stop.

I could easily write about what bullshit is coming from the Swedish Government (translation of Government with a big G for my parliamentarily challenged fellow Americans: the Administration) in the form of a recent pre-legislative study about gambling and who should be allowed to provide the service. But I'll leave Fredrik to roll his eyes prosaically at that one.

I could snort derisively at the fact that, according to this article on DI.se, Näringslivets etiska råd mot könsdiskriminerande reklam (Translation: Swedish Commerce's Ethical Council Against Sexual Discrimination in Advertising, *pant pant*) is... well, I don't know what they're doing, because I don't get who they are or what authority they have, but the long and short of it is that they're bitching about a Coca-Cola Zero TV ad that they think is sexist because it gives a tongue-in-cheek representation of the "perfect break-up," where the girl who's just been dumped says "Sure, no reason to stick to me where there are so many pretty girls out there. Call me when you want to have a good time," and then the guy walks away with 4 other hot girls. They complain that this is a blatant feeding of the stereotype that men are more interested in purely sexual relationships than women, and that the hot women are "scantily clad". I could roll my eyes and complain about how sexist it is that it's ALWAYS women in mascara ads, and point out that Magnum ice cream bars are marketed with TV ads that contain scantily clad women, but really, doesn't this one sort of take care of itself?

But the following article cannot be left without comment: Fetus Aborted by Mistake. Here's the short translation: a 28-year old woman sought treatment at a hospital in Stockholm because she was having trouble getting pregnant ("involuntary childlessness"). The doctor found that she has "cell changes" in her uterus and therefore performed a D&C. He apparently didn't realize that she actually was pregnant, and that during the D&C he scraped out the fetus. The National Board of Health and Welfare is gravely critical of the doctor, thinking he ought to have done a pregnancy test and paid attention to the patient when she mentioned that her period was 2 weeks overdue. They demand better routines and documentation.

But, jaw-droppingly, the last sentence in the article reads: "Men det vetenskapliga rådet på Socialstyrelsen tror inte att det inträffade inneburit några men för patienten och att hon bör kunna bli gravid igen."

Translation: "But the scientific panel at The National Board does not feel that the incident caused any injury for the patient and that she ought to be able to become pregnant again."

I want to point out that the word "men" that I've translated to injury suggests more of a general or even mental injury rather than purely a physical one. As in, it's the word that you would use if you said something liked "Walking in on his parents' bondage session scarred Billy for life."

I'm sorry, but what can I say? The only thing that seems to want to creep out of my dropped jaw is "FUCK. YOU."

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this here; perhaps this scientific panel's job is merely to state the purely practical medical facts, and perhaps by "men" they DID mean physical injury, i.e. physical chance to get pregnant again. But even in that case they're not being entirely serious, because having experienced an aborted or lost pregnancy, especially with a D&C involved, does actually change one thing or another for the woman's next pregnancy. Since she was seeking help for difficulty in getting pregnant, I think it's safe to assume she's going to want to be pregnant again. And believe me, after my experience, I've chatted with enough women who have had miscarriages and D&Cs and read enough about all the things that can go wrong during pregnancy to know that there's at least a slightly bigger chance of certain complications (infection and scarring that can cause infertility, pre-term labor and placenta acretia during a subsequent pregnancy, for example) if you've previously been pregnant, had an abortion, miscarried, or had a D&C.

But I can't help but read this sentence as a dismissal of even the psychological aspects of any harm that might have been done to the woman. I'm sorry, that brings me back to my original reaction. Fuck them right in the ear. People who know me are well aware of the fact that I'm a supporter of abortion rights, so they will not take the meaning of my following sentences incorrectly. I will say for the hundredth time this year that the ability to have a new baby does not erase the fact that the baby you already had inside you has died. A wanted baby is not just raw materials. In this case, the baby didn't just die because of a cruel and unexplainable fluke of nature, but because of human negligence. You have a woman who clearly WANTED a child, had also presumably required a long time in order to become pregnant, and then that was taken away from her because some idiots shouldn't be trusted with a white coat and a stethoscope.

I will forever see red whenever I think of what happened to me in the emergency room when I lost our "Beiron" and will always fantasize about finding that nurse and screaming at her about the pain I will carry with me for the rest of my life because of her. But at least I can always remind myself -- though I do not gain much comfort from it and do not feel it makes her actions any more excusable -- that her actions are not what caused our baby to die. In the case described in the article, I just have no words. Except of course for one last "Jebus on a scooter, fuck that doctor with a chainsaw" for good measure.