Raped woman refused emergency contraception by OK doctor

[rjd970]

Really? (BTW I misspelled it - Hippocratic not hypocratic)

I've read several versions just now and don't see how this doctor's refusal would be considered a violation.

I would think refusing treatment with no valid medical reason, causing the patient into a difficult and emotional decision would constitute causing harm.

...thanks btw, I honestly had no idea how to spell it.

 

[rjd970]

Do we all make "logic" decisions? It's fine to criticize the doctor's logic but suggesting they can't be a doctor if they don't do this is nuts.

Further, there is something to be said for having principals whether others agree with them or not. Logic is not infallible.

I don't mean to suggest they can't be a doctor, but I am suggesting they could be open to law suits.

This isn't about personal preference, it is about good medicine.

 

[Cdywolfe]

That's not completely true and there's no way to know which one it is

This... It's misleading to act like the morning after pill doesn't, in some cases, abort fertilized eggs.

The sperm could have already fertilized an egg. Obviously that doctor feels as though preventing the fertilized egg from entering the uterus is abortion and imo it's well within her rights to refuse to prescribe medication that could cause one.

And btw you can be against abortion and it have nothing to do with religion. I'm against abortion and think religion is silly.

Now with all that said in the case of a rape victim I personally would have given it (though I do feel its wrong to use the morning after pill in most cases) but I totally respect that doctor's right to refuse.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I don't mean to suggest they can't be a doctor, but I am suggesting they could be open to law suits.

This isn't about personal preference, it is about good medicine.

no it isn't. It's about a private practitioner making a business decision. Regardless how he came to the conclusion, it makes no sense whatsoever for the government to be coercing docs.

 

[rjd970]

no it isn't. It's about a private practitioner making a business decision. Regardless how he came to the conclusion, it makes no sense whatsoever for the government to be coercing docs.

Huh? Is the gov even coercing in this case? The doctor is free to make whatever decision he wants, of course, but you can't sit here and say if the doctor made the wrong decision based on personal preference instead of medical and the victim has to go through an abortion that she didn't want to...she should have no recourse? How he came to the conclusion absolutely matters.

 

[therealUT]

Huh? Is the gov even coercing in this case? The doctor is free to make whatever decision he wants, of course, but you can't sit here and say if the doctor made the wrong decision based on personal preference instead of medical and the victim has to go through an abortion that she didn't want to...she should have no recourse? How he came to the conclusion absolutely matters.

She should have no recourse against the doctor; the doctor in no way made her situation worse. Her pregnancy would be the fault of the rapist, not the doctor.

 

[RodDRfromTNinKY]

Haven't read the post. Personally, not a fan of abortion except potentially of threat to mother, rape, or incest and still not sure then. Morning after pills prevent implantation, doesn't offend me but can offend others obviously.

Doesn't matter. Legally speaking, doctor's obligation (legally and ethically) is to treat the patient (within the law and whatever is legal and allowable within that state) until patient can be provided with a physician of equal stature/competence and give written notice to patient who will generally be given a certain amount of time to find another physician (of same specialty etc) like 30-90 days (depending on state) and the physician should provide a possible referral (good faith effort). This generally applies to outpatient settings (eg doc no longer wishes to treat a patient who refuses to take treatment for his herpes and runs around bragging about all the women he gets with or any scenario in which physican wishes to "fire" patient like repeatedly missing appointments, argumentative with staff, outbursts, etc).

I can understand not wanting to provide a treatment you do not wish to provide based on personal ethics or beliefs but if legal, okay within medical/professional ethics, and you are the only available provider of such services immediately available then th physician is obligated to provide those services until a suitable replacement can be found. You can't refuse care based on race, sex orientation, ability to pay, etc. The only exception should be and is if the patient presents threat of harm to physician, staff etc

Unless this was absolute Podunk nowhere then there would have been either two physicians or more available or an NP or something that would have given it. Most states do not require an Rx for this anyways and can be obtained from a pharmacist.

Doc: I don't feel comfortable providing this or agree with it but I realize these are your wishes and this is legal etc. My buddy doc 2 is down the hall. He'll be available to you in 10 min when he finishes with another patient. If you have any other problems or life threatening events in that time I will take care of them
Patient: Well, that's weird and you smell funny but okay. Let me know when he is ready.

Dumb that this is a problem or newsworthy. If patient an doctor are reasonable people, then they both agree to disagree and she gets her treatment or gets it a few minutes later etc

 

[Spartacavolus]

should have gone to a good doctor, rather than an OK one

 

[Weezer]

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.

Not wanting to get into the abortion side of this debate, but one thing I could bring up with your statement, you don't always choose your attorney and the attorney does not always have the right to refuse your case. Miranda rights, you have the right to an attorney and if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you. Those lawyers are appointed by the court and expected to give their best defense whether or not they believe in their clients guilt or innocence. There is supposed to be unbias there.

 

[gsvol]