Rape Victim Denied Emergency Contraception By Doctor

[The True Adonis]

nice straw man,

since you dont want more ppl in the US am I safe in assuming you would institute a manditory euthanisia past a certain age?

straw mans are a wonderful thing arent they?

Don`t have a clue what you are talking about.  I am for tax breaks for people who do not want children or incentives given.

[MCWAY]

Don`t have a clue what you are talking about.  I am for tax breaks for people who do not want children or incentives given.

And the reason they should get tax breaks would be......

[Dos Equis]

Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away...

I don't go to doctor for sermons. If I wanted sermons I'd go to a church. I will repeat my point: If the doctor cannot, in good conscience, practice medicine then he shouldn't be a doctor.

Would you defend a doctor "forced" to treat a patient who was black if the doctor was racist? How is that any different that refusing to prescribe contraceptives? And if you would, what kind of whacked out world do you live in?

Actually, pharmacists don't prescribe abortion pills and most of them cannot prescribe medication.  But let's not let the facts get in the way. 

If you don't like you're doctor's views, go find another doctor. 

A doctor can practice medicine and his faith, especially in this instance. 

[avxo]

Actually, pharmacists don't prescribe abortion pills and most of them cannot prescribe medication.  But let's not let the facts get in the way. 

I didn't suggest they could or did. I wrote: "Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away..." which I think pretty accurately describes the function that a pharmacist performs in filling and dispensing a prescription.

If you don't like you're doctor's views, go find another doctor.

I certainly would. But remember, we're talking about pharmacists. And it's a small problem when the pharmacist, like Neil Noesen did, takes the prescription and not only refuses to fill it but also doesn't refer you to another pharmacist and refuses to either return or transfer the prescription.

A doctor can practice medicine and his faith, especially in this instance.

Doctors (and pharmacists) have an ethical duty to their patient, and if they can't uphold that duty, they should not be doctors (or pharmacists). It's really simple: if you are a health care professional but cannot practice medicine without compromising your faith, then you should find another job.

Seriously, your position reminds me of a story I read about a medical student who wanted the University to not flunk him in obstetrics and gynecology. He received a failing grade and was not allowed to graduate because he refused to fulfill the course requirements (by participating in an abortion) and refused to even refer patients to another doctor for the procedure. Again, this was a guy who wanted to become an obstetrician! Seriously?!?

[The True Adonis]

I didn't suggest they could or did. I wrote: "Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away..." which I think pretty accurately describes the function that a pharmacist performs in filling and dispensing a prescription.


I certainly would. But remember, we're talking about pharmacists. And it's a small problem when the pharmacist, like Neil Noesen did, takes the prescription and not only refuses to fill it but also doesn't refer you to another pharmacist and refuses to either return or transfer the prescription.


Doctors (and pharmacists) have an ethical duty to their patient, and if they can't uphold that duty, they should not be doctors (or pharmacists). It's really simple: if you are a health care professional but cannot practice medicine without compromising your faith, then you should find another job.

Seriously, your position reminds me of a story I read about a medical student who wanted the University to not flunk him in obstetrics and gynecology. He received a failing grade and was not allowed to graduate because he refused to fulfill the course requirements (by participating in an abortion) and refused to even refer patients to another doctor for the procedure. Again, this was a guy who wanted to become an obstetrician! Seriously?!?

I wonder if that is Ron Poop you are referring to?

[OzmO]

I do think it's with in the doctors right to refuse this type of aid based on her beliefs.

That being said, I think the self-righteous bitch should be fired.  

(at the very least moved out of being in a position to decide)

I think it's pretty cold and inhuman the doctor denying a woman who had just been raped aid in preventing a unwanted pregnancy.  It's not like she was having irresponsible sex.  

Part of being a doctor is not to let personal beliefs decide whether or not aid should be given. 

[The True Adonis]

I do think it's with in the doctors right to refuse this type of aid based on her beliefs.

That being said, I think the self-righteous bitch should be fired.  

(at the very least moved out of being in a position to decide)

I think it's pretty cold and inhuman the doctor denying a woman who had just been raped aid in preventing a unwanted pregnancy.  It's not like she was having irresponsible sex.  

I don`t believe in sewing up this trauma patient because his severe head wound looks like the face of Jesus.  Lets have him die instead.

[OzmO]

I don`t believe in sewing up this trauma patient because his severe head wound looks like the face of Jesus.  Lets have him die instead.

It's not all or nothing or black or white.  There is a difference between a person asking for a rape kit versus a person DYING from head wounds.  

On a side note, this is probably why Christian scientists arent doctors lol.  At least I think there aren't. Lol


Important note:  I don't think what the doctor did here was right. 

[Hugo Chavez]

It's not all or nothing or black or white.  There is a difference between a person asking for a rape kit versus a person DYING from head wounds.  

On a side note, this is probably why Christian scientists arent doctors lol.  At least I think there aren't. Lol


Important note:  I don't think what the doctor did here was right. 

there are christian psychos that are doctors.

Just hope nobody here ever has to have a loved one go through a brutalizing exorcism by a stupid christian doctor because the doctor thinks cancer is caused by the devil... Been there done that don't recommend it for anyone.

[Dos Equis]

I didn't suggest they could or did. I wrote: "Actually, the issue is a pharmacist handing a bottle of pills, but let's not get carried away..." which I think pretty accurately describes the function that a pharmacist performs in filling and dispensing a prescription.


I certainly would. But remember, we're talking about pharmacists. And it's a small problem when the pharmacist, like Neil Noesen did, takes the prescription and not only refuses to fill it but also doesn't refer you to another pharmacist and refuses to either return or transfer the prescription.


Doctors (and pharmacists) have an ethical duty to their patient, and if they can't uphold that duty, they should not be doctors (or pharmacists). It's really simple: if you are a health care professional but cannot practice medicine without compromising your faith, then you should find another job.

Seriously, your position reminds me of a story I read about a medical student who wanted the University to not flunk him in obstetrics and gynecology. He received a failing grade and was not allowed to graduate because he refused to fulfill the course requirements (by participating in an abortion) and refused to even refer patients to another doctor for the procedure. Again, this was a guy who wanted to become an obstetrician! Seriously?!?

Read the title of the thread.  This is supposedly about a doctor prescribing an abortion pill, not a pharmacist handing out a bottle of pills. 

We're not talking about pharmacists.  We're talking about doctors. 

Not sure if you're aware of that whole First Amendment thing, but the government cannot force a doctor to whatever the government wants. 

Don't know anything about the story you mentioned, and it has zero to do with whether a doctor should be forced to prescribe an abortion pill. 

[Straw Man]

Read the title of the thread.  This is supposedly about a doctor prescribing an abortion pill, not a pharmacist handing out a bottle of pills.  

We're not talking about pharmacists.  We're talking about doctors.  

Not sure if you're aware of that whole First Amendment thing, but the government cannot force a doctor to whatever the government wants.  

Don't know anything about the story you mentioned, and it has zero to do with whether a doctor should be forced to prescribe an abortion pill.  

avxo - this is why you are wasting your time

the whole story?

what part do you think might be missing that would justify the doctors actions

the commentator said the woman was denied the morning after pill (which is contraception and not an abortion pill - many fundies are too stupid to understand the difference) and was denied by the doctor who said that prescribing CONTRACEPTION violated her religious beliefs

granted, this was spoken by the commentator rather than having the rape victim on tape telling it to you herself but I'm sure you can understand why perhaps this rape victim would not like her name or image in the story

We've seen the type of story before.   The fundie doctors religious beliefs trump the victims need for medical attention

I say if your religous beliefs prevent you from performing some part of your job then you are not qualified for the job and should not be hired

[OzmO]

there are christian psychos that are doctors.

Just hope nobody here ever has to have a loved one go through a brutalizing exorcism by a stupid christian doctor because the doctor thinks cancer is caused by the devil... Been there done that don't recommend it for anyone.

That doctor who refused contraception must be one of them.  Nothing like etremist religious freaks. 

[avxo]

Read the title of the thread.  This is supposedly about a doctor prescribing an abortion pill, not a pharmacist handing out a bottle of pills. 

I was referring to the particular subject I was trying to discuss.

We're not talking about pharmacists.  We're talking about doctors.

We can talk about doctors if you'd prefer, although pharmacists are just as important. After all even if you can a prescription by a doctor, what good is it if the pharmacist takes it and refuses to fill it or return it so that you may fill it elsewhere?

I have no particular problem with doctors refusing to perform certain procedures (provided that doing so doesn't have immediate and direct repercussions to the health of their patient) on conscientious grounds, but then the doctor has an ethical obligation to refer the patient to another doctor.

And again I will point out the issue that you're avoiding: these people became doctors knowing full well that they may be faced with situations where their conscience would prevent them from treating their patients. Why, then, would they choose to become doctors?

Not sure if you're aware of that whole First Amendment thing, but the government cannot force a doctor to whatever the government wants. 

I think you are confused about the meaning of the First Amendment. Besides, this has nothing to do with government coercion and everything to do with a doctor who, despite knowing that his chosen profession might require him to violate his conscience, chose to become a doctor anyway.

Don't know anything about the story you mentioned, and it has zero to do with whether a doctor should be forced to prescribe an abortion pill.

Even if you don't know much about the case, do you think it's appropriate for a medical school student who is seeking a degree in gynecology and obstetrics to not only request a waiver from course requirements because the course violates his conscience, but to openly admit that not only will be not perform certain procedures on his future patients but that he will not even refer them to someone who will?

What if he story mentioned by the OP was about a gp who refused to treat Jews on the same grounds? Or an oncologist who would not prescribe chemotherapy because it violated his conscience? Or a surgeon who refused to use transfusions during surgery because it violates his conscience?

The bottom line is that doctors have ethical obligations and responsibilities to their patients. If they know in advance that they cannot meet those responsibilities or uphold those ethical obligations then they should not try to become doctors.

[dario73]

It's funny, when they're in their mothers belly their life is sacred.  When they're a little older though, we have no problem sending them off to die in the Middle East.

Oh, did the USA bring back the draft?  Is anyone forced to join the military? 

Seems like personal responsibility is a very foreign concept to many posting on this board.

[Hugo Chavez]

Ummm....they're usually not little kids, when they VOLUNTEER to be a member of the Armed Forces. They're adults.

They have a choice in the matter (to a degree). The unborn babies....not so much.

If they're adults why don't they get treated like adults?...  They can't even go have a fucking beer for fuck sake.  Sure, go die for America but don't you dare try to buy a beer

refuckingtarded.

[garebear]

there are christian psychos that are doctors.

Just hope nobody here ever has to have a loved one go through a brutalizing exorcism by a stupid christian doctor because the doctor thinks cancer is caused by the devil... Been there done that don't recommend it for anyone.

Seriously?

Where was this?

Can't you sue for something like that? Or at least get his/her medical license revoked?

[whork]

I say if the Republicans want to stop abortions, then let them pay for the children and nobody else.  Republicans are morons when it comes to Abortion.  Complete morons.

+1000

[whork]

If you engage in the activity that makes babies, you take care of those babies. It's a pretty simple concept.

So you are against people deciding for themselves what to do with their bodies?

[Straw Man]

Any doctor who doesn't know the difference between  contraception and abortion should be immediately subject to a review by state licensing board to confirm that he/she actually understands where babies come from.    If they still insist that the morning after pill is an abortion they should lose their license

if the doctor doesn't understand this very basic part of human physiology they shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine

[GigantorX]

Any doctor who doesn't know the difference between  contraception and abortion should be immediately subject to a review by state licensing board to confirm that he/she actually understands where babies come from.    If they still insist that the morning after pill is an abortion they should lose their license

if the doctor doesn't understand this very basic part of human physiology they shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine

Agreed.

My stance is this

A - I believe the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't put in my body etc.
B -I don't like abortion, not a big fan.

So if I believe in A then I would have to say that a woman should also have the right to have an abortion, it is her body, correct? It seems a bit 'off' if I was to tell the government to stop telling me what I can eat/drink/tan whatever and then turn around and tell a woman that she can't have an abortion.

[Straw Man]

Agreed.

My stance is this

A - I believe the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't put in my body etc.
B -I don't like abortion, not a big fan.

So if I believe in A then I would have to say that a woman should also have the right to have an abortion, it is her body, correct? It seems a bit 'off' if I was to tell the government to stop telling me what I can eat/drink/tan whatever and then turn around and tell a woman that she can't have an abortion.

and in the case of this woman it would be access to contraception and not abortion

[GigantorX]

and in the case of this woman it would be access to contraception and not abortion

Well, yes, but my post was speaking in generalities. I know the difference between the two.

[Straw Man]

Well, yes, but my post was speaking in generalities. I know the difference between the two.

yeah, I figured you did and I only mentioned it because I want to point out that many fundies (such as Bum) have had this explained to them many times and yet they choose to perpetuate ignorance and continue to refer to emergency contraception as a "abortion pill".    If fact, willful ignorance and perpetuating lies seems to be an absolute requirement in order to maintain a fundie point of view.

This particular characterstic of of fundies (christians, muslims, etc..) is bizarro and I see no reason why we as a society need to respect or even tolerate it, especially when they insist that the rest of us buy into their patenly false beliefs.   This is also why it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion or debate on the topic.    You're starting out talking with someone who's position is immune to fact and even contrary to facts

[MCWAY]

So you are against people deciding for themselves what to do with their bodies?

Nope. But then again, the mother isn't getting her arms and legs ripped off, or her head crushed with a vice, or having her brain sucked up with a tube. Nor is she being burned with a chemical solution.

[Dos Equis]

I was referring to the particular subject I was trying to discuss.


We can talk about doctors if you'd prefer, although pharmacists are just as important. After all even if you can a prescription by a doctor, what good is it if the pharmacist takes it and refuses to fill it or return it so that you may fill it elsewhere?

I have no particular problem with doctors refusing to perform certain procedures (provided that doing so doesn't have immediate and direct repercussions to the health of their patient) on conscientious grounds, but then the doctor has an ethical obligation to refer the patient to another doctor.

And again I will point out the issue that you're avoiding: these people became doctors knowing full well that they may be faced with situations where their conscience would prevent them from treating their patients. Why, then, would they choose to become doctors?


I think you are confused about the meaning of the First Amendment. Besides, this has nothing to do with government coercion and everything to do with a doctor who, despite knowing that his chosen profession might require him to violate his conscience, chose to become a doctor anyway.


Even if you don't know much about the case, do you think it's appropriate for a medical school student who is seeking a degree in gynecology and obstetrics to not only request a waiver from course requirements because the course violates his conscience, but to openly admit that not only will be not perform certain procedures on his future patients but that he will not even refer them to someone who will?

What if he story mentioned by the OP was about a gp who refused to treat Jews on the same grounds? Or an oncologist who would not prescribe chemotherapy because it violated his conscience? Or a surgeon who refused to use transfusions during surgery because it violates his conscience?

The bottom line is that doctors have ethical obligations and responsibilities to their patients. If they know in advance that they cannot meet those responsibilities or uphold those ethical obligations then they should not try to become doctors.

The discussion had/has nothing to do with pharmacists.

This is the only thing you've said that I agree with:    "I have no particular problem with doctors refusing to perform certain procedures (provided that doing so doesn't have immediate and direct repercussions to the health of their patient) on conscientious grounds, but then the doctor has an ethical obligation to refer the patient to another doctor."

End of story.  Who cares about some absurd, nonexistent, unrealistic hypothetical?  (I don't.)