The end of a love affair?

I have loved the state of Montana since I moved here in the fall of 1990. Nothing has ever made me wonder if I should move until now.

I have had three children born in Havre and raised them all here. I am the only useful parent my children have. I’m still very active in their lives.

There is a referendum proposed in the upcoming Montana election that would threaten my freedom to provide health care to Havre and the surrounding communities. And it threatens my freedom to be an important part of my children’s lives. You may wonder how in the world that could be?

The problem is the referendum called LR-131. This is supposed to be an anti-abortion bill, but it is really an anti-doctor, anti-health care worker bill. In Montana it is already illegal not to resuscitate any newborn that has any chance of living. This law is called “Protection of Premature Infants Born Alive.” This law already applies to babies born by abortion. It also applies to babies born naturally, as long as they have a chance to survive.

LR-131 says that health care workers must try to resuscitate babies that are non-viable. Non-viable means they cannnot live. That means that I, if faced with a newborn baby that cannot live, must take that baby away from its parents, push a breathing tube down its tiny throat, press on its little tiny chest, and poke it with IVs. I don’t have any choice, because if I don’t do that I could go to jail for 20 years. The parents don’t have any choice. The parents cannot say please don’t take my dying baby from me, I want to hold it for its last few minutes.

Do not doubt, resuscitation is harsh. It is worth it if you get your life in exchange. But not if that is all you get out of your tiny, short life.

The original suggested legislation, proposed by a pro-life organization called Americans United For Life, preserved parents’ right to refuse treatment that “temporarily prolongs the act of dying when death is imminent.” But this was not kept in LR-131.

What would I do if faced with this choice? LR-131 says if I don’t take that baby and do all that harsh intervention to it I could go to jail for 20 years. If this had happened early in my career, would I have taken the risk that someone else would’ve had to raise my children? If it happens now, would I take the risk I might live out my retirement in jail? Would I have done something I deeply believe is cruel, in order to remain free to raise my own children?

If I were younger and this law passed, I would move out of Montana. In the meantime, I would be praying I was not faced with that horrible choice, while I looked for work in a state without a law forcing me to assault a dying newborn.

I can tell you that if this law passes, you will get fewer doctors who deliver babies and care for newborn babies moving to Montana. You will get some of us considering moving away. The choice is too harsh. Trying and failing to resuscitate a dying baby or face 20 years in jail? There is no reason for this.

I am aware that some people will say the reason for the law is that they don’t trust physicians can make the right choice. They don’t think a physician can tell if a baby cannot live. Fine, if you don’t trust my judgment I don’t need to live here, and why would you want me?

——

Emergency medical specialist Dr. Cameron Parham, MD, practices in Havre.