E-17-1｜Medical Handling Path and Abnormal Risk Record in the 2016 Pregnancy Termination Event

1. Rapid Intervention After Pregnancy Was Confirmed

After my pregnancy was confirmed, I was required the very next day to go to a designated gynecologist for examination.

This arrangement was not ordinary free choice of medical treatment, but a medical pathway with a clearly directed nature.

2. Pregnancy Termination Was Arranged Within an Extremely Short Time

Within an extremely short time after the examination (the next day), the doctor arranged a pregnancy termination procedure for me.

• No sufficient observation period was apparent;
• No independent review or second-opinion mechanism was apparent;
• No adequate waiting period, re-examination, or preserved space for choice was apparent;
• The overall speed of decision advancement was abnormally rapid.

For a pregnancy that was still at a very early stage, this rapid progression itself raises major doubts.

2.1 Reconfirmation Before the Procedure

Before the operation, I personally asked the doctor responsible for the abortion procedure to confirm once again whether the fetus truly “had no heartbeat.”

For me, this was not an ordinary question, but the final confirmation of the core fact before the execution of an irreversible medical decision.

However, when I raised this question, the doctor did not respond directly in a clear, firm, and convincing way. On the contrary, I clearly remember that the doctor showed obvious avoidance at that moment and did not dare look directly at me.

This detail remains extremely clear in my memory, because it occurred at a critical moment directly related to the life of the fetus and the integrity of my body.

For this reason, I have never been able to understand this event simply as an ordinary, clear, and unquestionable medical outcome, but have long suspected that there may have been misjudgment, misleading conduct, or other undisclosed problems involved.

3. Surgery and Anesthesia Risk Issues

I underwent an abortion procedure under general anesthesia, lasting approximately five hours.

• I had diabetes at the time;
• I also had high blood pressure;
• General anesthesia normally carries higher risk for patients with such underlying conditions;
• The fetus was only about one month old at the time;

Under these conditions, carrying out a long general anesthesia procedure raises major doubts as to necessity, risk assessment, and medical reasonableness.

4. Abnormal Signs During / After the Procedure

After the operation, when I regained consciousness, a nurse said:

“You finally woke up. We were terribly worried about you.”

This statement did not sound like ordinary comforting language, but rather like an indication that an abnormal situation, delayed awakening, or other risk event may have occurred during the surgery or anesthesia process.

This further strengthened my doubts about the safety and handling of the procedure.

5. Post-Operative State Intervention and Reproductive Restriction

After this event, government-related personnel:

• requested that I undergo contraceptive surgery;
• offered that the government would cover the cost;
• explicitly stated that if I became pregnant again, they might take away my child (Oscar).

This goes beyond ordinary medical advice and amounts to direct intervention and threat concerning my future reproductive behavior.

6. Long-Term Consequences

After this event, I never became pregnant again.

This fact alone does not automatically prove causation, but it constitutes a long-term consequence issue that must be taken seriously:

• whether there was post-operative bodily impact;
• whether reproductive capacity was impaired;
• whether long-term effects were caused by the medical operation, post-operative handling, or later intervention;
• whether reproductive avoidance resulted from fear and threat.

Whether at the bodily level or the institutional level, this event had a profound impact on my future reproductive possibilities.

7. Evidentiary Significance of This Page

The contents recorded on this page support the following key arguments:

• this event was not an ordinary natural medical outcome, but an abnormal medical handling event requiring renewed examination;
• this event involved rapid decision-making, a forced pathway, and high-risk operation problems;
• after this event, there was direct restriction and threat by government actors concerning my reproductive rights;
• this event may have caused long-term and irreversible impacts on my body, fertility, and life trajectory.

Based on the actual experience, this medical process lasted a long time and involved relatively high risk, yet corresponding detailed documentation is not visible in the currently available medical records. This is inconsistent with the basic requirement that medical records should reflect the actual diagnostic and treatment process.

This medical process lasted a long time and involved higher risk, yet no corresponding detailed description or procedural record is visible in the existing medical records.

By contrast, other comparatively minor medical actions are recorded in the system, while this important medical process lacks corresponding documentation.

8. Download Archived Files

Below are the download entry points for materials corresponding to this page:

← Back to E-17 Module Index