Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:14 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,819 Year: 4,856/19,786 Month: 978/873 Week: 334/376 Day: 11/116 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Rape victim denied emergency contraception based on religious beliefs of the doctor.
StrawberryPatchBug
Junior Member (Idle past 4068 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 08-08-2007


Message 1 of 48 (436709)
11-27-2007 9:49 AM


I caught the very end of a report on CNN last night about doctors refusing emergency contraception to women who have been raped because the practice does not fit with their religious doctrin. Then I did a little research this morning and found a case not too far from where I live.

http://aclupa.blogspot.com/2006/07/rape-victim-denied-emergency.html

This particular doctor was insensitive enough to equate the womans pursute of medical help in this area with buying a pair of jeans.


"People drive to Reading to buy jeans. Even if that were the case, that you had to drive to Reading to get this [prescription], to me that does not rise to a compulsion that you have to pass laws that [doctors] have to do something."

This notion terrifies me as a women who if caught in such a horrible situation, might not be able to find the help I need.
I just wanted to get some opinions on this and the similar subject of certain pharmacies denying customers the right to prescribed contraceptives.

Edited by StrawberryPatchBug, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 11-28-2007 3:27 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded
 Message 4 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-28-2007 4:15 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Jazzns, posted 11-28-2007 1:26 PM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Jon, posted 11-28-2007 5:17 PM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Fosdick, posted 11-28-2007 7:19 PM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1909
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 48 (436923)
11-28-2007 3:06 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 48 (436927)
11-28-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug
11-27-2007 9:49 AM


Just goes to show how religion can make good people do awfull things.

Lucky for us Brits that can't happen.

My girlfriend is a Midwife and one of her colleagues gor into real trouble for not providing information to patient about abortion.

The beliefs of the practitioner have no place in the medical work place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-27-2007 9:49 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

    
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 2540 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 4 of 48 (436928)
11-28-2007 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug
11-27-2007 9:49 AM


My mother is a practicing pharmacist, and I asked her once about this thing of US pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives because of their beliefs. I asked her if she could or would ever refuse to dispense because of her beliefs (she's Catholic).

She looked at me like I had two heads, and when I said I was actually serious, she said no, under no circumstances could she ever refuse to dispense medication for personal reasons. They can refuse if they don't have the medicine in stock, or if they have reason to believe the prescription is a fake, or if the customer is being abusive.

She made a good point then - if she was going to refuse because of religious beliefs, where would you draw the line? At contraception? Stop selling condoms? What if she refused to dispense to homosexuals, Wiccans, or any person that her religion disapproves of? She said, and rightly so, that a prescription showed that a qualified doctor had seen someone and decided they needed medication - a pharmacist should not and cannot make that decision after the fact. In Ireland, in case you don't know, we have a drugs scheme where expensive and life-saving drugs are available to people who might not be able to afford them, because they only pay a small set amount and the government pays the rest.

A pharmacist who refuses to dispense on religious grounds is being unneccessarily cruel and indifferent to the needs of others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-27-2007 9:49 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 5 of 48 (436949)
11-28-2007 8:43 AM


Shocking
That's disgraceful. I'm truly shocked to read of such casual disregard for medical ethics. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. This sort of behaviour is typical of the kind of fundamentalist who isn't satisfied with merely following their own faith, but wants everybody else to follow it as well, whether they like it or not.
Also, I can't help but wonder if this is constitutional. If public funding were involved in funding the doctor, or the med's or most especially the pharmacist, wouldn't that breach the woman's First Amendment rights?


Mutate and Survive
Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-28-2007 8:57 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
StrawberryPatchBug
Junior Member (Idle past 4068 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 08-08-2007


Message 6 of 48 (436950)
11-28-2007 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Granny Magda
11-28-2007 8:43 AM


Re: Shocking
Well in the case of the doctors they are actually obligated to help anyone seeking emergency contraception find another doctor who will offer it. In a lot of cases this isn't happening and even when it does, using this kind of method is very time sensitive and if a woman who has been raped has to wait a few days to find someone else it might just be too late.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Granny Magda, posted 11-28-2007 8:43 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 11-28-2007 9:50 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 48 (436958)
11-28-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by StrawberryPatchBug
11-28-2007 8:57 AM


Re: Shocking
Goddamned fucking woman-hating religious assholes!!!!

Sorry, there was no ther way to say it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-28-2007 8:57 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 8 of 48 (437010)
11-28-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug
11-27-2007 9:49 AM


Doctor <= Rapist?
The first thought I had about this is who do you think is the worse victimizer of this poor woman? The doctor or the rapist?

With the rapist, you have someone who is initially recieved as a horrible person doing a horrible act.

With the doctor, you have someone who is expected to be your ally at your time of need doing a horrible act.

What do you think?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-27-2007 9:49 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2007 1:50 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 48 (437014)
11-28-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jazzns
11-28-2007 1:26 PM


Re: Doctor <= Rapist?
With the rapist, you have someone who is initially recieved as a horrible person doing a horrible act.

What makes you think that's true? Usually, the rapist is a man the victim is already quite familiar with.

Personally I don't think doctors should have the freedom to withhold treatment for religious reasons. We allow doctors to practice medicine because it's in the public interest, that's why they need licenses. Thus, they're obligated to serve the public interest. If providing patient care violates their religious beliefs then they have an obligation to cease the practice of medicine. They can't have it both ways.

Is that worse than being raped? I wouldn't presume to know. It's certainly not a good thing when the victim of a rape is betrayed by somebody who is supposed to help them.

But I notice a lot of American doctors doing things like that, these days. It honestly seems like I live in the one country in the world where doctors expect to get paid doctor salaries to not practice medicine. It's ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jazzns, posted 11-28-2007 1:26 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2007 1:56 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2032 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 48 (437015)
11-28-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
11-28-2007 1:50 PM


Re: Doctor <= Rapist?
Is that worse than being raped?

no, i'd say. potentially equal as it is once again someone else claiming control over your body. but it's presumably less violent. however, being forced by this person who is supposed to be your healer to potentially carry a child that will remind you every second of every day of the vile and violent act perpetrated against you for the better part of a year, i'd say the consequences could be worse than had he been helpful and a healer. this woman is your patient. your obligation to do no harm is to her, not some vague idea of a child that probably doesn't exist anyways.

it is my personal opinion that if people don't want to practice medicine, they should find a new job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2007 1:50 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-28-2007 6:54 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 48 (437050)
11-28-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug
11-27-2007 9:49 AM


'Cause everyone wants their rapist's kid crawlin' up inside 'em!
:mad: :mad:

How dare they!!!!!

You get a wick, I'll get a torch, Honey.
You get a wick, I'll get a torch, Babe.
You get a wick, I'll get a torch,
We'll set a fire on the doctor's porch...
Honey, Baby mine.

Any takers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-27-2007 9:49 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 11-29-2007 7:27 AM Jon has responded

  
StrawberryPatchBug
Junior Member (Idle past 4068 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 08-08-2007


Message 12 of 48 (437072)
11-28-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by macaroniandcheese
11-28-2007 1:56 PM


Re: Doctor <= Rapist?
I think you make a great point about the woman being victimized a second time by again having no control of her body. Thoughts like this really terrify me because I am a woman and these are issues that I think all women have to think about. What happens if I am caught in such a horrible situation? To think that it would be that much more difficult having to go to a doctor that is judging you instead of offering sympathy and is trying to make life decisions for you based on their beliefs instead of giving you the care you need. A women couldn't help but feel totally without any control which offers nothing but deeper psychological damage. And for any doctor to even imply that a woman should carry the child of the man who raped her goes against the code of "do no harm" to a ridiculous degree.

I am personally scared because Pennsylvania seems to be the next in line for legislation in favor of these zealot doctors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2007 1:56 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-28-2007 7:00 PM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Thor, posted 11-28-2007 10:16 PM StrawberryPatchBug has responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2032 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 13 of 48 (437075)
11-28-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by StrawberryPatchBug
11-28-2007 6:54 PM


Re: Doctor <= Rapist?
judging you instead of offering sympathy and is trying to make life decisions for you based on their beliefs instead of giving you the care you need.

and that is really the issue with fundamentalists in general, doctor or not. and that is precisely what jesus wasn't about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-28-2007 6:54 PM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3604 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 14 of 48 (437079)
11-28-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug
11-27-2007 9:49 AM


Out of the closet
SPB writes:

doctors refusing emergency contraception to women who have been raped because the practice does not fit with their religious doctrin.


I regard this as functionally equivalent to gays demanding their same-sex marriage rights. Religio-medicine is as queer to American modernity as homo-matrimony.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by StrawberryPatchBug, posted 11-27-2007 9:49 AM StrawberryPatchBug has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2007 7:23 PM Fosdick has responded
 Message 47 by AdminNem, posted 11-29-2007 11:36 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 48 (437080)
11-28-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Fosdick
11-28-2007 7:19 PM


Re: Out of the closet
I regard this as functionally equivalent to gays demanding their same-sex marriage rights.

How so? In one situation, you have doctors asserting a civil right to deny another person's civil rights. In the other, two people are requesting a civil right that other people want to deny them.

I don't see anything functionally equivalent, except where religion, as always, makes people behave like douchbags.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Fosdick, posted 11-28-2007 7:19 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Fosdick, posted 11-28-2007 9:03 PM crashfrog has responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019