OK, never mind, I read the article again. The rape counseler did find another physician to give the woman the pill.
If this were in the bible belt however, say... Georgia (where I used to live), she would have had more difficulty though.
Okay, maybe the doctor shouldn't have to do procedures that are against his religion but I still think he should be expected to provide information to his patients when he is asked. If he doesn't want to help then the least he can do is point the way to help instead of standing in the way.
*edit*
Oh, and I certainly don't think doctors should ever humiliate victims. What this doctor did actually caused more psychological harm.
You're ALMOST in my vein of thinking - and I agree that humiliating the victim is totally wrong.
However, I still think that the doctor should not have to provide information on another doctor who will do the procedure. Look at it this way: A Christian doctor does not do abortions. His patient wants one, and when he refuses she asks (in his mind): "Hey, if you won't murder my baby, will you show me where I can murder it?"
It is still compromising the morals of the doctor. Honestly, If you have a few minutes, get a phone book or go on google, and find a few doctors in your area. I garuntee that within 10 minutes, you will find one that will do an abortion/prescribe the pill. As such, any half-intelligent human being should be able to get treatment rather easily.
A note: I do NOT believe that misleading/attacking the patient is right. However, I do not think that doctors should be obligated to compromise their morals for nonessential procedures.
@Spatual: Pardon that I don't have the documentation from the meetings at this very moment. Frankly, your attack of my statement is barely related to the issue at hand. Furthermore, it is rather pretentious of you to compare a doctor's income to their work - from the way you talk, I doubt you know any doctor outside of coming in for a checkup. As such, I think I'm just going to ignore any statements you make on this issue. If anyone else does want information on ridiculous malpractise costs and decides not to be obnoxious and attack me, I would gladly provide it within a reasonable time frame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
Thing is, while most rape victims are at least half-intelligent, they are typically very vulnerable. Even if a doctor doesn't want to help the patient, he/she still needs to be sensitive about it or risk doing even more psychological damage. This guy in the article was way too blunt about it as are a lot of people who do not know what it is like to be sexually assaulted.
In my opinion, doctors who are pro-life should not handle rape victims at all. Pro-lifers should not be gynocologists if the sanctity of the woman's body is not their priority because their personal beliefs only do harm in these kinds of situations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
Thing is, while most rape victims are at least half-intelligent, they are typically very vulnerable. Even if a doctor doesn't want to help the patient, he/she still needs to be sensitive about it or risk doing even more psychological damage. This guy in the article was way too blunt about it as are a lot of people who do not know what it is like to be sexually assaulted.
A close friend of mine is a pro-life ob-gyn, and she makes it abundantly (and politely) clear that she does not do abortions and provide contraceptives/day after pills - only she does it with a big sign in the front lobby. Plenty of pro-life doctors would and do make good ob-gyns,though. We shouldn't limit their choices just beacuse they dont want to do one procedure and perscribe one drug.
While I DO admit that the doctor in the article was a *bit* harsh, all he really said was: "No, I cant do that. Its against my religion." While the way that the article presents it may have made him seem callous, I think its just a media spin, and that the doctor simply stated that he didn't believe it was right to administer the treatment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
I still stand by my opinion that they should not be working with rape victims. I know and you know that one of the first things that most rape victims are going to think is "I don't want to carry this ****** baby." Very few women are going to want to carry the thing to term. Thats going to be one of the first things they are going to ask for; a pill (or, if it's too late for that, an abortion.) Refusing them this treatment will, in many cases, add insult to injury and contribute to the woman's post-traumatic stress. If a pro-lifer wants to help deliver babies, fine. But don't force anybody into that situation. Have someone else handle the rape victims. Don't put yourself in the situation where you have to hurt a victim without providing any benefit to them.Maybe this is a bad analogy, but here I go:Policement enforce the law. Sometimes however, a cop on the beat has to kill someone. If you are opposed to killing, don't join the policeforce OR if you must then at least get a desk job or something. Don't go to stop a hostage situation then drop your gun and declare yourself a pacifist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
where he will be making well under 100 grand for the next 4 years, while paying malpractise - only afterwards will he be making money.
??
If you have to phrase it such that "he will be making well under 100 grand," instead of ninety grand or eighty grand, than I am not concerned. Anywhere even in the vicinity of one hundred thousand dollars a year is fantastic pay.
This issue fundamentally comes down to whether or not a fetus is alive. If it is not, then who cares if it is aborted? (NARAL has publicly stated that a fetus is no more of a person than an appendix.)
But if the fetus is alive, then every abortion is killing a human being. Does a person somehow become less human because of the actions of a parent?
Actual story: when I worked at a gas station, I refused to sell cigarettes to a pregnant woman because while I could not stop her from harming her child, I would not be a participant in the process.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
I still stand by my opinion that they should not be working with rape victims.
I can agree with that - but it can still be done without barring a doctor from a particular field. As long as the doctor is not expected to compromise his or her morals to do the job, I suppose that it is entirely acceptable to require that a doctor make it clear that he or she won't do one procedure or another (a pro-life sticker on the door or something :P)
Actual story: when I worked at a gas station, I refused to sell cigarettes to a pregnant woman because while I could not stop her from harming her child, I would not be a participant in the process.
Good for you - I don't know of many people that would do that. (I'm being serious, this is not sarcasm)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
This issue fundamentally comes down to whether or not a fetus is alive. If it is not, then who cares if it is aborted? (NARAL has publicly stated that a fetus is no more of a person than an appendix.)
But if the fetus is alive, then every abortion is killing a human being. Does a person somehow become less human because of the actions of a parent?
That isn't what this is about at all.
I think you've completely missed the point at hand.
Actual story: when I worked at a gas station, I refused to sell cigarettes to a pregnant woman because while I could not stop her from harming her child, I would not be a participant in the process.
You could have sold them to her and called the cops.
I can agree with that - but it can still be done without barring a doctor from a particular field. As long as the doctor is not expected to compromise his or her morals to do the job, I suppose that it is entirely acceptable to require that a doctor make it clear that he or she won't do one procedure or another (a pro-life sticker on the door or something :P)
If I understand correctly, I can agree.
A doctor should not be barred from a particular field if there is are certain procedures within that field they are not willing to do, but they should make it clear that they are not willing to perform that procedure with signs/stickers on door/etc. before even seeing patients as refusing treatment to patients on the spot can be emotionally distressing and cause harm.
Questions:
Should hospitals be expected to have at least one doctor on staff willing to perform a certain treatment?
If not, should there be an effort made to ensure that there is at least one doctor in the area willing to perform that treatment? Who should be making that effort and how much effort should be made?
If it is up to the patient to find their own treatment, at what point are we preventing that patient from finding treatment by making it too difficult to find? Shouldn't we make some effort to meet victims halfway?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
The question should be "if a patient asks for a second opinion, should a doctor be allowed to say 'no.'"?
But if we are away from this article, I would expect good hospital systems to offer the widest variety of legal and safe treatments. Birth control falls into both of those categories.
A doctor should not be barred from a particular field if there is are certain procedures within that field they are not willing to do, but they should make it clear that they are not willing to perform that procedure with signs/stickers on door/etc. before even seeing patients as refusing treatment to patients on the spot can be emotionally distressing and cause harm.
Indeed, that is exactly what I am getting at. This way, no one forces anyone else to do anything, and everyone can be happy.
Questions:
Should hospitals be expected to have at least one doctor on staff willing to perform a certain treatment?
If not, should there be an effort made to ensure that there is at least one doctor in the area willing to perform that treatment? Who should be making that effort and how much effort should be made?
If it is up to the patient to find their own treatment, at what point are we preventing that patient from finding treatment by making it too difficult to find? Shouldn't we make some effort to meet victims halfway?
1: Hell yes. A hospital should, and will, attempt to provide every treatment
they can.
2: Possibly, but I don't really know who that responsibility would fall upon.
3: Honestly, in any relatively large area (read: Any major city/suburbs of that city) you can find treatment within minutes with half a brain and a computer.
Applying it to this particular type of case, lets say that doctor refuses her, and she goes to another and he refuses, so on and so on - in this situation, you can't blame the doctors - they each acted individually of each other, and the inability to find proper treatment in time would be entirely the patient's fault.
If, however, the doctor referred her to another doctor that he KNEW would not give her the pill, and that doctor did the same, and so on and so on, until it was too late, then the doctors are entirely to blame - I would even advise legal action against them at that point.
A note: wow, a peaceable solution in the discussion forum?! Heh, must be becase TIBA isnt here
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
Any doctor of a public hospital may object to carry an abortion if he does not wishes to due to personal moral beliefs.
However, if the hospital is unable to provide the service to a patient due to lack of willing doctors, the hospital must arrange for the operation to be carried out in another hospital, public or private, and must pay for the expenses.
I think it is an elegant idea that works.
Just wanted to share these thougths to the debate
I think thats a great idea. I wonder if they already have a law like that in my state?I should write my congressman or something. I'll try to do that this weekend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
I think you've completely missed the point at hand.[/qoute]
To the contrary, this ultimately is the point because how you feel about abortion will determine how you feel about how that doctor feels about abortion. If you feel that a fetus is a person, then what the doctor did was, to misquote Magic cliches, The Right Play.
[quote=Denver'D;/comments/10976770]You could have sold them to her and called the cops.
Nope. Here in the US, it is legal to smoke while pregnant.
I think thats a great idea. I wonder if they already have a law like that in my state?I should write my congressman or something. I'll try to do that this weekend.
But... forcing the hospital to pay expenses? O_o; That seems a little.. harsh. Unless the patient pays that hospital to begin with or something - otherwise, thats just silly. They might as well apply the same law to any complex surgery that the hospital cannot provide.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
Nope. Here in the US, it is legal to smoke while pregnant.
But it isn't legal to harm a child, and (and I am fairly certain about this) the law treats a fetus as a living child up until the mother decides to abort. (If she decides to abort.)
fetal personhood hasn't been passed anywhere I know of, although I think several states do have statutes giving the fetus some kind of special status above organs.
Based on abortion being legal? If a fetus had legal personhood it would have legal rights and thus killing it would be considered murder in the eyes of the law.
But it isn't legal to harm a child, and (and I am fairly certain about this) the law treats a fetus as a living child up until the mother decides to abort. (If she decides to abort.)
"In a ruling that runs contrary to every other state supreme court that has addressed the issue, South Carolina's highest court this week upheld the criminal prosecution of pregnant women who used drugs, finding that a viable fetus is a "person" covered by the state's child-abuse laws." -Tamar Lewin, New York Times writer.
This shows that South Carolina is the only state in the United States that treats the fetus as a person. So, if you lived in South Carolina, I could agree with you. Also, abortion in the United States is only legal up to th 12 week.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"All people are born equal; it's what they do in life that makes them seperate"
But it isn't legal to harm a child, and (and I am fairly certain about this) the law treats a fetus as a living child up until the mother decides to abort. (If she decides to abort.)
Depends on the state, but there have been attempts to ban smoking while pregnant. The courts overruled it as "her body, her choice."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
This shows that South Carolina is the only state in the United States that treats the fetus as a person. So, if you lived in South Carolina, I could agree with you. Also, abortion in the United States is only legal up to th 12 week.
That case was decided in 1996.
And that doesn't mean that ADAs haven't prosecuted pregnant mothers for negligent action in the past though, in any state. Prosecutorial discretion makes it difficult to track how cases and charges go; since it's left in the hands of the prosecutors to decide.
Well, if you don't want a baby for any reason you can legally "dispose" of it. If you were to cause the death of an unborn child in most states you could be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. It seems the principal factor in whether or not a fetus is a human or not lies in its convenience to the mother.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're ALMOST in my vein of thinking - and I agree that humiliating the victim is totally wrong.
However, I still think that the doctor should not have to provide information on another doctor who will do the procedure. Look at it this way: A Christian doctor does not do abortions. His patient wants one, and when he refuses she asks (in his mind): "Hey, if you won't murder my baby, will you show me where I can murder it?"
It is still compromising the morals of the doctor. Honestly, If you have a few minutes, get a phone book or go on google, and find a few doctors in your area. I garuntee that within 10 minutes, you will find one that will do an abortion/prescribe the pill. As such, any half-intelligent human being should be able to get treatment rather easily.
A note: I do NOT believe that misleading/attacking the patient is right. However, I do not think that doctors should be obligated to compromise their morals for nonessential procedures.
@Spatual: Pardon that I don't have the documentation from the meetings at this very moment. Frankly, your attack of my statement is barely related to the issue at hand. Furthermore, it is rather pretentious of you to compare a doctor's income to their work - from the way you talk, I doubt you know any doctor outside of coming in for a checkup. As such, I think I'm just going to ignore any statements you make on this issue. If anyone else does want information on ridiculous malpractise costs and decides not to be obnoxious and attack me, I would gladly provide it within a reasonable time frame.
In my opinion, doctors who are pro-life should not handle rape victims at all. Pro-lifers should not be gynocologists if the sanctity of the woman's body is not their priority because their personal beliefs only do harm in these kinds of situations.
There is an imposter among us...
Oh, I'm sure this is a problem in places like Iran too.
*edit*
Don't flame me, I'm only kidding.
There is an imposter among us...
A close friend of mine is a pro-life ob-gyn, and she makes it abundantly (and politely) clear that she does not do abortions and provide contraceptives/day after pills - only she does it with a big sign in the front lobby. Plenty of pro-life doctors would and do make good ob-gyns,though. We shouldn't limit their choices just beacuse they dont want to do one procedure and perscribe one drug.
While I DO admit that the doctor in the article was a *bit* harsh, all he really said was: "No, I cant do that. Its against my religion." While the way that the article presents it may have made him seem callous, I think its just a media spin, and that the doctor simply stated that he didn't believe it was right to administer the treatment.
There is an imposter among us...
??
If you have to phrase it such that "he will be making well under 100 grand," instead of ninety grand or eighty grand, than I am not concerned. Anywhere even in the vicinity of one hundred thousand dollars a year is fantastic pay.
But if the fetus is alive, then every abortion is killing a human being. Does a person somehow become less human because of the actions of a parent?
Actual story: when I worked at a gas station, I refused to sell cigarettes to a pregnant woman because while I could not stop her from harming her child, I would not be a participant in the process.
I can agree with that - but it can still be done without barring a doctor from a particular field. As long as the doctor is not expected to compromise his or her morals to do the job, I suppose that it is entirely acceptable to require that a doctor make it clear that he or she won't do one procedure or another (a pro-life sticker on the door or something :P)
Good for you - I don't know of many people that would do that. (I'm being serious, this is not sarcasm)
That isn't what this is about at all.
I think you've completely missed the point at hand.
You could have sold them to her and called the cops.
If I understand correctly, I can agree.
A doctor should not be barred from a particular field if there is are certain procedures within that field they are not willing to do, but they should make it clear that they are not willing to perform that procedure with signs/stickers on door/etc. before even seeing patients as refusing treatment to patients on the spot can be emotionally distressing and cause harm.
Questions:
Should hospitals be expected to have at least one doctor on staff willing to perform a certain treatment?
If not, should there be an effort made to ensure that there is at least one doctor in the area willing to perform that treatment? Who should be making that effort and how much effort should be made?
If it is up to the patient to find their own treatment, at what point are we preventing that patient from finding treatment by making it too difficult to find? Shouldn't we make some effort to meet victims halfway?
There is an imposter among us...
But if we are away from this article, I would expect good hospital systems to offer the widest variety of legal and safe treatments. Birth control falls into both of those categories.
Indeed, that is exactly what I am getting at. This way, no one forces anyone else to do anything, and everyone can be happy.
1: Hell yes. A hospital should, and will, attempt to provide every treatment
they can.
2: Possibly, but I don't really know who that responsibility would fall upon.
3: Honestly, in any relatively large area (read: Any major city/suburbs of that city) you can find treatment within minutes with half a brain and a computer.
Applying it to this particular type of case, lets say that doctor refuses her, and she goes to another and he refuses, so on and so on - in this situation, you can't blame the doctors - they each acted individually of each other, and the inability to find proper treatment in time would be entirely the patient's fault.
If, however, the doctor referred her to another doctor that he KNEW would not give her the pill, and that doctor did the same, and so on and so on, until it was too late, then the doctors are entirely to blame - I would even advise legal action against them at that point.
A note: wow, a peaceable solution in the discussion forum?! Heh, must be becase TIBA isnt here
I think thats a great idea. I wonder if they already have a law like that in my state?I should write my congressman or something. I'll try to do that this weekend.
There is an imposter among us...
Nope. Here in the US, it is legal to smoke while pregnant.
But... forcing the hospital to pay expenses? O_o; That seems a little.. harsh. Unless the patient pays that hospital to begin with or something - otherwise, thats just silly. They might as well apply the same law to any complex surgery that the hospital cannot provide.
But it isn't legal to harm a child, and (and I am fairly certain about this) the law treats a fetus as a living child up until the mother decides to abort. (If she decides to abort.)
Based on what?
??
Did you not read what I said?
"In a ruling that runs contrary to every other state supreme court that has addressed the issue, South Carolina's highest court this week upheld the criminal prosecution of pregnant women who used drugs, finding that a viable fetus is a "person" covered by the state's child-abuse laws." -Tamar Lewin, New York Times writer.
This shows that South Carolina is the only state in the United States that treats the fetus as a person. So, if you lived in South Carolina, I could agree with you. Also, abortion in the United States is only legal up to th 12 week.
Depends on the state, but there have been attempts to ban smoking while pregnant. The courts overruled it as "her body, her choice."
That case was decided in 1996.
And that doesn't mean that ADAs haven't prosecuted pregnant mothers for negligent action in the past though, in any state. Prosecutorial discretion makes it difficult to track how cases and charges go; since it's left in the hands of the prosecutors to decide.
What you said didn't make any sense. Being a human being isn't something you can turn off and on with a switch.