Raped woman refused emergency contraception by OK doctor

#1
KoachKrab127

KoachKrab127

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
4,827
Likes
5,655
#1
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2
#2
.
Fortunately, the young woman in Oklahoma ended up going to another hospital, where she received the medication she needed and the rape kit. But she would have had to go to two hospitals either way, since budget cuts have forced the state to resort to a system of rotating Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE nurses).
Click to expand...

problem solved
 
#3
#3
KoachKrab127 said:
Oklahoma Doctor Refuses To Provide Rape Victim With Emergency Contraception | ThinkProgress

The doctor is protected under the conscience clause.

Personally, it disgusts me that doctors can refuse treatment based on religious beliefs
. If they don't believe in the legal treatment, they shouldn't be a doctor.

It's not even abortion, it's contraception for a rape victim. It's very disturbing.
Click to expand...


it may not have had anything to do with religious beliefs.
Is it not possible that anyone, even an atheist, can be opposed to abortion?
 
#4
#4
Gramps said:
it may not have had anything to do with religious beliefs.
Is it not possible that anyone, even an atheist, can be opposed to abortion?
Click to expand...

my discomfort with it has nothing to do with religion.

To flip this around, should a doctor be required to perform abortions? I mean abortions are legal and all so by the logic of the OP all doctors should be forced to provide abortions in the case of rape.
 
#5
#5
volinbham said:
my discomfort with it has nothing to do with religion.

To flip this around, should a doctor be required to perform abortions? I mean abortions are legal and all so by the logic of the OP all doctors should be forced to provide abortions in the case of rape.
Click to expand...

First of all, it was not an abortion. It was emergency contraception which has an intent of preventing a pregnancy, not terminating it. There is a difference (it's amazing how many people don't understand that).

Secondly, if a person does not want to prescribe medicine based on his/her personal beliefs, that person should NOT become a doctor.

You shouldn't be allowed to take a job and then say, "No, I won't do that work because it's against my beliefs." That's BS.

Next, will restaurants have waiters who refuse to take shrimp platter orders? (The bible does say shrimp is an abomination). How ridiculous would that sound? Well....it's the same thing.
 
#6
#6
volinbham said:
my discomfort with it has nothing to do with religion.

To flip this around, should a doctor be required to perform abortions? I mean abortions are legal and all so by the logic of the OP all doctors should be forced to provide abortions in the case of rape.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.

If a doctor firmly believes that by doing an abortion it is committing murder then I do not think the government. had the right to force him to do so.

This case is a little different and he was treating a rape victim whom I assume ask for "the morning after pill" or something similar. That is not abortion .
 
#7
#7
KoachKrab127 said:
First of all, it was not an abortion. It was emergency contraception which has an intent of preventing a pregnancy, not terminating it. There is a difference (it's amazing how many people don't understand that).

Secondly, if a person does not want to prescribe medicine based on his/her personal beliefs, that person should NOT become a doctor.

You shouldn't be allowed to take a job and then say, "No, I won't do that work because it's against my beliefs." That's BS.

Next, will restaurants have waiters who refuse to take shrimp platter orders? (The bible does say shrimp is an abomination). How ridiculous would that sound? Well....it's the same thing.
Click to expand...

I think he should have given it to her but the notion that your beliefs have to be completely put aside is nuts.

You are saying all doctors should be required to prescribe all legal drugs? What if a doctor doesn't think Ritalin is a good drug - should he/she be forced to prescribe it?
 
#9
#9
Gramps said:
I respectfully disagree.

If a doctor firmly believes that by doing an abortion it is committing murder then I do not think the government. had the right to force him to do so.

I agree 100%

This case is a little different and he was treating a rape victim whom I assume ask for "the morning after pill" or something similar. That is not abortion .
Click to expand...

It is different (and I was exaggerating) but the OP said doctors should be required to administer medical treatment that is legal - see my Ritalin example for a different view.
 
#10
#10
KoachKrab127 said:
Not really. That's an even bigger problem. Budget cuts have caused health clinics to not be able to have enough workers? Doesn't sound like a solution, sounds like a big problem to me.
Click to expand...

The budget cuts are a completely independent event. I was saying "problem solved" partly in jest but the woman is free to seek medical help from other doctors at the facility or at other facilities. One doctor's decision did not doom her to a "rape baby"
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
It is different (and I was exaggerating) but the OP said doctors should be required to administer medical treatment that is legal - see my Ritalin example for a different view.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is a good example .
 
#12
#12
volinbham said:
I think he should have given it to her but the notion that your beliefs have to be completely put aside is nuts.

You are saying all doctors should be required to prescribe all legal drugs? What if a doctor doesn't think Ritalin is a good drug - should he/she be forced to prescribe it?
Click to expand...

Judges are required to put their personal beliefs aside when they take a case, and in many instances, so are lawyers. Why should doctors be allowed to not treat a patient based on beliefs?

If a doctor has a professional medical opinion based on documented facts as to why a specific treatment in a specific instance is dangerous or unnecessary, then I am all for that.

But if a person wants to become a doctor and then refuse to give contraception to a rape victim because of personal belief, the doctor is FORCING his or her beliefs on that person, and I am against that. That person should NOT be a doctor, because he or she cannot be objective.
 
#13
#13
KoachKrab127 said:
Judges are required to put their personal beliefs aside when they take a case, and in many instances, so are lawyers. Why should doctors be allowed to not treat a patient based on beliefs?

If a doctor has a professional medical opinion based on documented facts as to why a specific treatment in a specific instance is dangerous or unnecessary, then I am all for that.

But if a person wants to become a doctor and then refuse to give contraception to a rape victim because of personal belief, the doctor is FORCING his or her beliefs on that person, and I am against that. That person should NOT be a doctor, because he or she cannot be objective.
Click to expand...

You don't choose a judge. You do choose a lawyer and they can always decide not to represent you period or drop you if you want to do something they disagree with.

Lol that all doctors are 100% objective and that we only can see one doctor.

I would have given her the drug but your really deluding yourself if you think all doctors are objective with regard to treatment and what is "best for" their patients. She has options.
 
#14
#14
Also, and this is an honest question, can any doctor give an abortion, or does a specialist have to do that? If a person wants to be a doctor, they should know that giving abortions is part of the job. If they don't like that, they should go into a different field.
 
#15
#15
KoachKrab127 said:
Also, and this is an honest question, can any doctor give an abortion, or does a specialist have to do that? If a person wants to be a doctor, they should know that giving abortions is part of the job. If they don't like that, they should go into a different field.
Click to expand...

Wow
 
#17
#17
KoachKrab127 said:
Also, and this is an honest question, can any doctor give an abortion, or does a specialist have to do that? If a person wants to be a doctor, they should know that giving abortions is part of the job. If they don't like that, they should go into a different field.
Click to expand...

Negative and this is why government needs to keep out of health care. Most hospitals are run and managed by private organizations and corporations; they are not government institutions. If you do not like that said hospital allows their doctors to refuse to perform abortions, then pick a different hospital.
 
#18
#18
KoachKrab127 said:
Also, and this is an honest question, can any doctor give an abortion, or does a specialist have to do that? If a person wants to be a doctor, they should know that giving abortions is part of the job. If they don't like that, they should go into a different field.
Click to expand...

what happened to the "pursuit of happiness"?

You would allow religious discrimination in one direction, but you can't accept it going in another direction?
 
#19
#19
MG1968 said:
what happened to the "pursuit of happiness"?

You would allow religious discrimination in one direction, but you can't accept it going in another direction?
Click to expand...

Because ThinkProgress expressed outrage.

Also, Gramps asked the right question - abortion queasiness is not limited to religious beliefs
 
#20
#20
volinbham said:
You don't choose a judge. You do choose a lawyer and they can always decide not to represent you period or drop you if you want to do something they disagree with.

Lol that all doctors are 100% objective and that we only can see one doctor.

I would have given her the drug but your really deluding yourself if you think all doctors are objective with regard to treatment and what is "best for" their patients. She has options.
Click to expand...

So, you're using the argument "well, everybody does it!" to justify bad doctors? If doctors are not doing what is best for their patients they should be investigated.

And did I say we can only see one doctor? Sure, she could see a different doctor, but their was a time issue in this instance. The longer you wait to take emergency contraception, the more likely pregnancy will occur. That could be a problem when a doctor is refusing treatment in a situation that is pressed for time.

Like I said, if a doctor has a professional medical opinion as to why a certain treatment is not safe, I would listen. But this "personal beliefs" nonsense has to be stopped. They shouldn't be a doctor if they have personal beliefs against what a doctor does!
 
#21
#21
KoachKrab127 said:
So, you're using the argument "well, everybody does it!" to justify bad doctors? If doctors are not doing what is best for their patients they should be investigated.

And did I say we can only see one doctor? Sure, she could see a different doctor, but their was a time issue in this instance. The longer you wait to take emergency contraception, the more likely pregnancy will occur. That could be a problem when a doctor is refusing treatment in a situation that is pressed for time.

Like I said, if a doctor has a professional medical opinion as to why a certain treatment is not safe, I would listen. But this "personal beliefs" nonsense has to be stopped. They shouldn't be a doctor if they have personal beliefs against what a doctor does!
Click to expand...

Who the **** are you to say what kind of treatment a doctor can and cannot prescribe? A doctor certainly should be charged if they knowingly provide a treatment that will make the situation worse; however, they should not have to provide the best treatment, at whatever cost (financial or moral) to them. If the patient does not like the treatment, then the patient can and should choose another doctor, time constraint be damned.
 
#22
#22
MG1968 said:
what happened to the "pursuit of happiness"?

You would allow religious discrimination in one direction, but you can't accept it going in another direction?
Click to expand...

If your pursuit of happiness effects other people's rights, that's a problem. You can argue "well, she could've seen a different doctor," but there's a time issue here. What if she ended up getting pregnant and then got an abortion? The doctor would be responsible for that abortion.

What if the governor forced everyone in the state to give away all their money to the homeless because "that's what Jesus would have done?"

If you don't let him do that, you're not allowing his pursuit of happiness!

See, that's a ridiculous argument, and the same goes for doctors. If you become a doctor, you have to provide treatment to patients. If you don't have the foresight to see that you might have to prescribe emergency contraception to somebody, then you're probably too stupid to be a doctor in the first place. (slight sarcasm on that last sentence)
 
#23
#23
therealUT said:
Negative and this is why government needs to keep out of health care. Most hospitals are run and managed by private organizations and corporations; they are not government institutions. If you do not like that said hospital allows their doctors to refuse to perform abortions, then pick a different hospital.
Click to expand...


This, although I doubt koachkrab will address it.
 
#25
#25
KoachKrab127 said:
If your pursuit of happiness effects other people's rights, that's a problem. You can argue "well, she could've seen a different doctor," but there's a time issue here. What if she ended up getting pregnant and then got an abortion? The doctor would be responsible for that abortion.

What if the governor forced everyone in the state to give away all their money to the homeless because "that's what Jesus would have done?"

If you don't let him do that, you're not allowing his pursuit of happiness!

See, that's a ridiculous argument, and the same goes for doctors. If you become a doctor, you have to provide treatment to patients. If you don't have the foresight to see that you might have to prescribe emergency contraception to somebody, then you're probably too stupid to be a doctor in the first place. (slight sarcasm on that last sentence)
Click to expand...

There is a difference between providing treatment to save a life and providing treatment in order to grant comfort. There is an intrinsic duty in the former, and no duty in the latter. That is, a doctor ought to be able to tell someone who does not like the treatment that they can find another doctor.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top