Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: ~flower~ on June 22, 2007, 11:58:55 AM
-
Long Article so here is the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/wid/11915773/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/wid/11915773/)
Should Drs. be allowed to refuse treatment because of their personal religious beliefs?
Should there be laws concerning what they can or can't refuse? (IE: they could refuse to do abortions, but can't refuse to prescribe birth control)
-
Should Drs. be allowed to refuse treatment because of their personal religious beliefs?
)
Yes, I think so.
Should there be laws concerning what they can or can't refuse? (IE: they could refuse to do abortions, but can't refuse to prescribe birth control)
I don't agree w/the Catholic Church concept that birth control is a sin or whatever they think it is, but I don't think a Catholic doctor should be forced to prescribe it. I'm not sure they could write a law specific enough to cover things for which they could or could not refuse. Even if it was something like the woman's life is at stake unless whatever, each situation would have it's own details and judgement calls would differ.
My old gyno's office used to be in a Catholic Hospital. I had a fibroid but she wrongly diagnosed it and prescribed a Depo-Provera shot in hopes it would stop the bleeding. I took the script downstairs to the pharmacy and they asked if it was for birth control. I was just thinking in general terms about it what that shot is mainly used for and said Yes. They then said they couldn't fill the script there. No biggie, I went to a diff. pharmacy.
That article looks a little biased against "religious beliefs" in my opinion.
For instance, look at the writing here:
"Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)"
Why didn't she see another doctor? Is she saying he said it was against Dr. Gish's religion for her to see another doctor?
And this (attention to the bold) is not exclusive to female health care:
"In many cases, women don't even know a doctor is withholding treatment. Boyer and Harnish, for example, wouldn't have realized they'd been denied care if they'd been among the estimated one in three women who don't know about EC. In the New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. "When you see a doctor, you presume you're getting all the information you need to make a decision," notes Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and ...."
But I've read "SELF Magazine" several years ago and my interpreted skewing on their part does not surprise me. :-\
-
Fuck you STella!
Government, educational establishments and medical institutes and the such should always be secular: religious beliefs left at the door (for both the doctors, nurses etc AND patients).
This should be an amendment to every democratic countries constitution, those that aren't democratic, nuke them to hell and back. No "ifs" or "buts".
-
Fuck you STella!
Government, educational establishments and medical institutes and the such should always be secular: religious beliefs left at the door (for both the doctors, nurses etc AND patients).
This should be an amendment to every democratic countries constitution, those that aren't democratic, nuke them to hell and back. No "ifs" or "buts".
I see you feel strongly about this. Thanks for your contribution to this thread.
-
I see you feel strongly about this. Thanks for your contribution to this thread.
Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. They will enter the gas chamber when I become ruler of the known Universe.
Wisen up women.
-
Yes, I think so.
I don't agree w/the Catholic Church concept that birth control is a sin or whatever they think it is, but I don't think a Catholic doctor should be forced to prescribe it. I'm not sure they could write a law specific enough to cover things for which they could or could not refuse. Even if it was something like the woman's life is at stake unless whatever, each situation would have it's own details and judgement calls would differ.
My old gyno's office used to be in a Catholic Hospital. I had a fibroid but she wrongly diagnosed it and prescribed a Depo-Provera shot in hopes it would stop the bleeding. I took the script downstairs to the pharmacy and they asked if it was for birth control. I was just thinking in general terms about it what that shot is mainly used for and said Yes. They then said they couldn't fill the script there. No biggie, I went to a diff. pharmacy.
That article looks a little biased against "religious beliefs" in my opinion.
For instance, look at the writing here:
"Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)"
Why didn't she see another doctor? Is she saying he said it was against Dr. Gish's religion for her to see another doctor?
And this (attention to the bold) is not exclusive to female health care:
"In many cases, women don't even know a doctor is withholding treatment. Boyer and Harnish, for example, wouldn't have realized they'd been denied care if they'd been among the estimated one in three women who don't know about EC. In the New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. "When you see a doctor, you presume you're getting all the information you need to make a decision," notes Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and ...."
But I've read "SELF Magazine" several years ago and my interpreted skewing on their part does not surprise me. :-\
I agree with Stella. She could have easily escalated the fact that she wanted another doctor. It's her right to do so. Understanding her already-grief stricken state of mind, I still think she could have just gone to the nearest pharmacy.
But Boyer remained haunted by the ER doctor's refusal — so profoundly, she hasn't been to see a gynecologist in the two and a half years since. "I haven't gotten the nerve up to go, for fear of being judged again," she says. - How is it that she was being judged by the doc when he said it was against his religion? ???
Fuck you STella!
Government, educational establishments and medical institutes and the such should always be secular: religious beliefs left at the door (for both the doctors, nurses etc AND patients).
This should be an amendment to every democratic countries constitution, those that aren't democratic, nuke them to hell and back. No "ifs" or "buts".
You could have just as easily made your point without the expletive. ::)
-
You could have just as easily made your point without the expletive. ::)
I could have done... but I have to treat her like shit because i'm sick of the countless PM's I get daily from her asking for sex... :-\
I'm just fucking sick of it STella! >:(
-
Why didn't she see another doctor? Is she saying he said it was against Dr. Gish's religion for her to see another doctor?
I think he wouldn't get another on duty doctor for her. She said she would gladly see another doctor, and he shook his head no. Now if that was me I would of DEMANDED to see another doctor, but I could understand she was traumatized then on top of it the doctor judged her and then told her she couldn't have another doctor. That, IMO, was wrong of him. He could of had another doctor take over her case.
And this (attention to the bold) is not exclusive to female health care:
"In many cases, women don't even know a doctor is withholding treatment. Boyer and Harnish, for example, wouldn't have realized they'd been denied care if they'd been among the estimated one in three women who don't know about EC. In the New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. "When you see a doctor, you presume you're getting all the information you need to make a decision," notes Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and ...."
But I've read "SELF Magazine" several years ago and my interpreted skewing on their part does not surprise me. :-\
Well, that goes along with my feelings that people are not given all the information on a lot of things. Unless I was seeing a doctor in a "Catholic" hospital where I might expect that certain beliefs are going to be upheld, I would expect to get all the information. If the doctor was not comfortable prescribing or doing something they could refer me to someone else. But to withhold INFORMATION on options based on YOUR beliefs is not right. If I go into an emergency room or make an appointment with a private practice physician that gives no inclination that the medicine practiced will be based on religious beliefs, then I expect ALL the information.
-
I agree with Stella. She could have easily escalated the fact that she wanted another doctor. It's her right to do so. Understanding her already-grief stricken state of mind, I still think she could have just gone to the nearest pharmacy.
But Boyer remained haunted by the ER doctor's refusal — so profoundly, she hasn't been to see a gynecologist in the two and a half years since. "I haven't gotten the nerve up to go, for fear of being judged again," she says. - How is it that she was being judged by the doc when he said it was against his religion? ???
He judged her. She was raped and brutalized, then had a doctor, someone she thought she could trust, judge and dismiss her. So not only did she have something horrible happen to her, when she went to get help she was made to feel she was wrong. The fact that he wouldn't get her another doctor when she asked him to, says volumes about his compassion. And he was a man which probably made it even harder for her to stand up to him because a man had just assaulted her.
-
That doctor is a self righteous inconsiderate moron.
-
He judged her. She was raped and brutalized, then had a doctor, someone she thought she could trust, judge and dismiss her. So not only did she have something horrible happen to her, when she went to get help she was made to feel she was wrong. The fact that he wouldn't get her another doctor when she asked him to, says volumes about his compassion. And he was a man which probably made it even harder for her to stand up to him because a man had just assaulted her.
If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. - where in this article did he say she couldn't demand to see another doctor? Why would he say "It's against my religion" to get another doctor? ??? Also, I question the author of this article's wording here. Is Erdely (author) injecting her own opinion at this point and then placing the doctor's comment in a place of the article that paints a picture that might not actually be true. We see this all the time on television in the news. The media is famous for enclosing their opinion with a soundbite.
-
Assuming that that is what happened and what was said, him saying it was against his religion to knowingly send her to someone else to do something he thinks is wrong. So he wouldn't/couldn't refer her to someone else for that reason. Like that would be on his conscious or something.
Note I said assuming that that is what happened. Yes, she still could of made a scene or something, but remember she was just raped and brutalized. Then this doctor judged her and wouldn't help her. She was probably pretty beaten down emotionally at this time and had no fight in her.
-
Hopefully, they'll fire that asshole. The hospital should be sued. In Norway, he'd lose his job instantly if something like this occured, and he'd be frozen out from the medical social circles in an instant.
-
At the very least he should not be allowed to treat rape patients. If he won't give them all their options, then he should just not treat any.
-
At the very least he should not be allowed to treat rape patients. If he won't give them all their options, then he should just not treat any.
He should not threat any patient which has been through a recent mental trauma.
That religious people can exert energy trying to justify his acts is just repulsive. In most west european countries, he'd be toast.
If this dude had been a muslim, most of America would have been disgusted. ::) ::)
-
At the very least he should not be allowed to treat rape patients. If he won't give them all their options, then he should just not treat any.
I would agree with the statement that he shouldn't be in that type of practice, but I'm assuming that he's an emergency doc, therefore sees all types of cases. In this case, he could have deferred to another doc on call. But the article doesn't say if that was an option or not. Still, a nurse practictioner could have prescribed the med she wanted. The doc has a right to not prescribe the medicine just like pharmacist do with the morning-after pill.
side note - "morning-after" just sounds immoral to me. :-\
-
He should not threat any patient which has been through a recent mental trauma.
That religious people can exert energy trying to justify his acts is just repulsive. In most west european countries, he'd be toast.
If this dude had been a muslim, most of America would have been disgusted. ::) ::)
Actually, if the doc were a muslim, the media would have pulled out the red carpet for him and turned her name into mud just to appease him for fear that he might blow up some stuff. ::) ::) ::)
No, repulsive is 49 million abortions in this country since 1974.
-
Actually, if the doc were a muslim, the media would have pulled out the red carpet for him and turned her name into mud just to appease him for fear that he might blow up some stuff. ::) ::) ::)
No, repulsive is 49 million abortions in this country since 1974.
No, they wouldn't.
How would you react if your daughter was permanently psychologically damaged after a visit to the hospital because the doctor would not threat her because of her being a Christian?
Please give good and rational reasons for your statement about abortions being bad. Arguments from the religious doctrine you believe in does not count (as any reasonably intelligent person should understand).
-
Haven't read the article, ...but my take is that that was inexcuseable.
His license should be taken away.
That's like saying the vegetarian check out girl has the right to refuse ringing up your meat purchases at the supermarket, or that the Catholic waitress has the right to refuse you the steak on Friday. Live your own life by your own rules, don't try to make others live by your rules. Take his license away. F'ing moron!
-
Haven't read the article, ...but my take is that that was inexcuseable.
His license should be taken away.
That's like saying the vegetarian check out girl has the right to refuse ringing up your meat purchases at the supermarket, or that the Catholic waitress has the right to refuse you the steak on Friday. Live your own life by your own rules, don't try to make others live by your rules. Take his license away. F'ing moron!
I don't think the lunatics on this board will understand your argument. They believe that their own rules should apply to everybody, yet, freaks out when the same is done in reverse to them.
-
Actually, if the doc were a muslim, the media would have pulled out the red carpet for him and turned her name into mud just to appease him for fear that he might blow up some stuff. ::) ::) ::)
No, repulsive is 49 million abortions in this country since 1974.
This has nothing to do with abortion. Get your head from up out of your anatomy. >:(
EC is about preventing an unwanted, unplanned, and potentially forced pregnancy!
Maybe you'd be okay with a 13 year old fucking the entire football team,
...afterall, abstinence is another way to prevent pregnancy.
-
I don't think the lunatics on this board will understand your argument. They believe that their own rules should apply to everybody, yet, freaks out when the same is done in reverse to them.
How can people be so damned stupid? Absolutely fvcking obtuse!!!!
It's a damned good thing that wasn't me, ...'cause I would've probably unleashed some serious whoop ass on him.
Thank Goodness, I have a doctor who treats me according to MY beliefs. And he always lays out ALL options.
-
How can people be so damned stupid? Absolutely fvcking obtuse!!!!
It's a damned good thing that wasn't me, ...'cause I would've probably unleashed some serious whoop ass on him.
Thank Goodness, I have a doctor who treats me according to MY beliefs. And he always lays out ALL options.
Because these overly religious fanatics lack the intelligence to analyze situations with common sense. They are truly brainwashed if they can not see that what this doctor did was wrong. To defend a doctor (PAID to threat patients with respect and dignity) acting like a pompous asshole to a traumatized rape victim is so ignorant that I really can't understand how it is possible to defend it. Then she becomes traumatized for a long time by the situation, and they try to blame HER for it. I don't think these idiots have ever seen a traumatized person before.. It's selfish and delusional.
-
He should not threat any patient which has been through a recent mental trauma.
That religious people can exert energy trying to justify his acts is just repulsive. In most west european countries, he'd be toast.
If this dude had been a muslim, most of America would have been disgusted. ::) ::)
Exactly on the muslim. Americans would be so fired up then, calling for him to be fired...it would be all over the news etc.
Because these overly religious fanatics lack the intelligence to analyze situations with common sense. They are truly brainwashed if they can not see that what this doctor did was wrong. To defend a doctor (PAID to threat patients with respect and dignity) acting like a pompous asshole to a traumatized rape victim is so ignorant that I really can't understand how it is possible to defend it. Then she becomes traumatized for a long time by the situation, and they try to blame HER for it. I don't think these idiots have ever seen a traumatized person before.. It's selfish and delusional.
Agree yet again...
-
I think he wouldn't get another on duty doctor for her. She said she would gladly see another doctor, and he shook his head no.
OK I totally did not infer that he refused to get another doc for her. If that is the case, he should have been reprimanded or fired.
-
]
Well, that goes along with my feelings that people are not given all the information on a lot of things. Unless I was seeing a doctor in a "Catholic" hospital where I might expect that certain beliefs are going to be upheld, I would expect to get all the information. If the doctor was not comfortable prescribing or doing something they could refer me to someone else. But to withhold INFORMATION on options based on YOUR beliefs is not right. If I go into an emergency room or make an appointment with a private practice physician that gives no inclination that the medicine practiced will be based on religious beliefs, then I expect ALL the information.
If the abortion pill was an option but he wasn't willing to give it, yes, he should have informed her of the option so she could decide herself and gotten her another doc but he shouldn't be forced to prescribe it IMO.
-
I would agree with the statement that he shouldn't be in that type of practice, but I'm assuming that he's an emergency doc, therefore sees all types of cases. In this case, he could have deferred to another doc on call. But the article doesn't say if that was an option or not.
agree......
-
I could have done... but I have to treat her like shit because i'm sick of the countless PM's I get daily from her asking for sex... :-\
I'm just fucking sick of it STella! >:(
I'm sorry, I'll try to control myself :P
-
Long Article so here is the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/wid/11915773/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/wid/11915773/)
Should Drs. be allowed to refuse treatment because of their personal religious beliefs?
Should there be laws concerning what they can or can't refuse? (IE: they could refuse to do abortions, but can't refuse to prescribe birth control)
1. Yes. They ought to just get another doctor who can give the patient what he or she wants. The doctor in this news story should simply have referred the patient instead of telling the woman "no."
2. Not necessarily. Doctors are already required to treat anyone who shows up with a medical emergency (anti-patient dumping laws). Maybe they need rules, laws, etc. that require a doctor to simply step aside and refer the patient to someone else so long as there is no adverse impact on the woman.
-
Haven't read the article, ...but my take is that that was inexcuseable.
His license should be taken away.
::)
-
If the abortion pill was an option but he wasn't willing to give it, yes, he should have informed her of the option so she could decide herself and gotten her another doc but he shouldn't be forced to prescribe it IMO.
Yep. I agree.
-
If the abortion pill was an option but he wasn't willing to give it, yes, he should have informed her of the option so she could decide herself and gotten her another doc but he shouldn't be forced to prescribe it IMO.
STella, Emergency contraception IS NOT an abortion pill!
It does not abort a fetus. It prevents pregnancy.
I luv ya STella, ...but sometimes, ... you can be sooo... :-X &$%##&%#^%#^%#*^*!!!!
-
::)
No need to roll your eyes Beach. I got the just of it. A rape victim requests emergency contraception, and the doctor refuses to prescribe it to her on the basis of "his" religion. ??? What more is there to read? and what purpose would it serve? My blood was already simmering, ...no need for it to get to a full boil. That's pretty cut n' dry IMO. If there is some important nuance I'm missing by not having read that story, ...by all means, ...feel free to enlighten me.
-
If the abortion pill was an option but he wasn't willing to give it, yes, he should have informed her of the option so she could decide herself and gotten her another doc but he shouldn't be forced to prescribe it IMO.
I agree with that. He,or any doctor, should not be forced to prescribe or do something against their beliefs, but they should refer them to another doctor without judgement or hassle. It's the same as a judge recusing himself from a case. He should of handed it over to someone else.
-
No need to roll your eyes Beach. I got the just of it. A rape victim requests emergency contraception, and the doctor refuses to prescribe it to her on the basis of "his" religion. ??? What more is there to read? and what purpose would it serve? My blood was already simmering, ...no need for it to get to a full boil. That's pretty cut n' dry IMO. If there is some important nuance I'm missing by not having read that story, ...by all means, ...feel free to enlighten me.
You got the gist of what? His side of the story? If you would have read the article, you would have seen this: "(When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)"
You concluded a doctor should have his license taken away based on the headline of a story that you didn't read, where the story contains no comments from the doctor.
And what specific law or rule did he violate that would allow his medical license to be taken away?
-
STella, Emergency contraception IS NOT an abortion pill!
It does not abort a fetus. It prevents pregnancy.
I luv ya STella, ...but sometimes, ... you can be sooo... :-X &$%##&%#^%#^%#*^*!!!!
I love you too Jag :) but it seems that even the medical community differs on opinions re: that pill (that being said I've read it can both abort a fertilized egg AND prevent pregnancy).
I'll just bold the parts to read if you don't want to read all of the articles. 2 articles from both sides
STATEMENT OF CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE
The Morning After Pill (MAP)
The MAP is a multiple dose of an oral contraceptive. The MAP may prevent ovulation or, if fertilization has occurred, it may ruin the implantation of a newly conceived human being. It is important that the potential for post- fertilization effects be communicated to patients and health-care providers, as many consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization.
The common description of the MAP as emergency contraception fails to accurately describe its abortifacient action and is misleading the public. The confusion is aggravated by the current attempt to re-define pregnancy as occurring after implantation. It is a basic fact of human embryology that life begins at conception.
Impact of MAP Use
Manufacturers have greatly reduced the hormone content of oral contraceptives due to serious side effects and health risks. Now women are being encouraged to use these same pills, in multiple doses, as post- coital "contraception." The potential long-term impact of these high hormone doses, especially when used repeatedly, is worrisome and not being adequately addressed. The effect of the drug on children who survive is also a cause for concern.
The policy to make the morning-after-pill available without a doctor's prescription puts women and girls at higher risk for disease and sexual health problems. Physical and clinical examination by a physician are essential to good healthcare: to counsel patients and determine sexually- transmitted diseases, abusive relationships and related health issues.
Obviously increased access to MAP will increase use. The 1998-99 annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America showed an 83.5% increase in "emergency contraception (EC) clients". Seventy-eight of its 132 affiliates "offered EC kits to keep at home 'just in case'." Manufacturers stress that the MAP is not intended for repetitive use but offer no realistic plan to prevent this. In Asia, repetitive MAP use (and health consequences) have become commonplace, and health authorities there have become concerned.
Conscience Rights
A related issue raised by increased MAP demand is that of conscientious objection. Our recent correspondence with provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons indicates that, in general, regulating bodies agree that physicians do not have a professional obligation to refer a patient for an abortion. This principle must also apply to the prescription of abortifacients, where referral would violate the conscience and medical good judgement of the physician.
Canadian Physicians for Life affirms the Hippocratic tradition in medicine. We are dedicated to the respect and ethical treatment of every human being, regardless of age or infirmity. Those who hold these principles must not be pressured to act contrary to them as they are foundational to the integrity of our profession and the trust of the public.
Informed Decision Making
Any policy that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague is oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Pro- life practitioners are not merely refusing to prescribe a type of medication but are dedicated to helping patients make fully informed decisions about their health.
The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association requires physicians to "inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants." We suggest that doctors should be required to inform patients when pro-abortion beliefs may bias their approach to a pregnancy, reflecting the same principles expected of pro-life doctors. In other words, doctors who rank unborn human lives as disposable and who believe that abortion does not cause unacceptable harm to women should be expected to inform the patient of this bias during the counselling process.
Canadians are not being well informed due to the media tendency to ignore or misrepresent the facts about the Morning After Pill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information: Canadian Physicians for Life
________________________ ________________________ ________
Morning-after pill: Emergency birth control (from Mayo Clinic site)
What can you tell me about the morning-after pill? How does it work?
- No name / No state given
Mayo Clinic breast-health specialist Sandhya Pruthi, M.D., and colleagues answer select questions from readers.
Answer
The morning-after pill — a form of emergency birth control — is used to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant after she has had unprotected vaginal intercourse. Morning-after pills are generally considered safe, but many women are unaware that they exist. Here's how the morning-after pill works.
Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse. Instead, it occurs as long as several days later, after ovulation. During the time between intercourse and conception, sperm continue to travel through the fallopian tube until the egg appears. So taking emergency birth control the "morning after" isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.
The active ingredients in morning-after pills are similar to those in birth control pills, except in higher doses. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, progestin (Plan B), and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilized by sperm.
The morning-after pill is designed to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse with a second dose taken 12 hours later. Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue and headache. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the morning-after pill is 80 percent effective in preventing pregnancy after a single act of unprotected sex.
Morning-after pills aren't the same thing as the so-called abortion pill, or mifepristone (Mifeprex). Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one that has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.
Plan B is available to women 18 years and older without a prescription at most pharmacies. Women must show proof of age to purchase Plan B. For women 17 years old and younger, Plan B is available with a doctor's prescription.
Also, I find this sentence interesting from the Mayo site:
Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse.
Rarely doesn't mean never :-\
That all being said I believe all babies that die go directly to heaven.
-
I personally am not for abortion, especially as a means of birth control from careless behavior. But at 72 hours there is still nothing more than a clump of cells that have not even started to differentiate into what parts of the body they will become.
And taking into consideration that she went to the hospital immediately following her rape, it is really hard to call that a "baby" yet, IMO. I would much rather have someone take the EC rather than wait 2 months and have an abortion. :-\
-
The morning-after pill — a form of emergency birth control — is used to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant after she has had unprotected vaginal intercourse. Morning-after pills are generally considered safe, but many women are unaware that they exist. Here's how the morning-after pill works.
Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse. Instead, it occurs as long as several days later, after ovulation. During the time between intercourse and conception, sperm continue to travel through the fallopian tube until the egg appears. So taking emergency birth control the "morning after" isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.
The active ingredients in morning-after pills are similar to those in birth control pills, except in higher doses. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, progestin (Plan B), and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilized by sperm.
The morning-after pill is designed to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse with a second dose taken 12 hours later. Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue and headache. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the morning-after pill is 80 percent effective in preventing pregnancy after a single act of unprotected sex.
Morning-after pills aren't the same thing as the so-called abortion pill, or mifepristone (Mifeprex). Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one that has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.
Plan B is available to women 18 years and older without a prescription at most pharmacies. Women must show proof of age to purchase Plan B. For women 17 years old and younger, Plan B is available with a doctor's prescription.
Also, I find this sentence interesting from the Mayo site:
Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse.
Rarely doesn't mean never :-\
Fine then, ...if rarely doesn't mean never, ...then let the doctors show with 100% certainty that conception has already taken place before they demand a woman become the forced receptacle for breeding a rapist's baby. >:(
-
And what specific law or rule did he violate that would allow his medical license to be taken away?
First, do no harm!
-
First, do no harm!
Assuming that part of the Hippocratic Oath can result in the loss of this doctor's medical license, how did he violate it? Where is the harm? . . . other than poor bedside manner, assuming this woman's version is accurate (keeping in mind you don't have the doctor's version of events).
-
Fine then, ...if rarely doesn't mean never, ...then let the doctors show with 100% certainty that conception has already taken place before they demand a woman become the forced receptacle for breeding a rapist's baby. >:(
Implantation doesn't take place til about day 6. Here is an interesting article on the first days after fertilization. I still don't feel that taking EC shortly after unprotected sex is anywhere close to an abortion, but it does raise some interesting points.
-
Implantation doesn't take place til about day 6. Here is an interesting article on the first days after fertilization. I still don't feel that taking EC shortly after unprotected sex is anywhere close to an abortion, but it does raise some interesting points.
If at all. And that's just implantation... provided of course that the egg is fertilized, which in many cases takes places up to 4 days after intercourse. If some of these vigilante pro-lifers had any idea about the amount of fertilized eggs that do not implant themselves into the uterus, they'd shit themselves.
-
Yes, that is just implantation. If you read that article some people consider life starts the moment the egg is fertilized. I do think that is the start of a life, but can't be considered a "baby" because the cells have not even differentiated into what parts of the body they will become. I can't consider that "murder" if someone wants to use that term. And like you said Jag, a lot of eggs do not implant, or the body aborts them even if they do. That does happen a lot more than people think it does.
I don't think EC should be used nonchalantly as a means of birth control, but accidents and mistakes do happen, and women are raped, so to deny women the availability of this option may result in more actual abortions, IMO.
-
No, they wouldn't.
How would you react if your daughter was permanently psychologically damaged after a visit to the hospital because the doctor would not threat her because of her being a Christian?
These days, it feels like that's more and more the norm. ::)
Please give good and rational reasons for your statement about abortions being bad. Arguments from the religious doctrine you believe in does not count (as any reasonably intelligent person should understand).
Have you ever seen the ultrasound of a "fetus" at 8 weeks? It's but a speck and a heartbeat. The heartbeat means that there is life. Did you know at 9 weeks, a "fetus" can feel pain. Simply put, DF, it's a life.