Raped teen denied Plan B pill due to doctor's religious believes.

Printable View

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

August 29th, 2006, 06:02 PM
kiania

Quote:

Originally posted by Aristotle
Interestingly, that was my opinion when I watched the Boston Legal episode.

Additionally, doctors take an oath that requires them to put the patients needs ahead of their own beliefs.

Yes, they take an oath, but he could be thinking about the potential life of the baby more than the girl. This is unfortunate.

As to Karmei's point to me, I mentioned it because it would mean that he could keep his religious beliefs by -not- performing the deed, however, he could also aid the girl to do -her- religious beliefs, and do as she see's fit.
August 29th, 2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Karmei
“in my opinion the only life threatened here is the possible unborn life that could be growing inside the girl”

I’m sorry, but are you high? That’s the only way I can understand someone making that statement. Would you like the girl to be forced to carry the baby to term as well? * What about when it’s then born, do you think they’re really going to try and track down the “father” and make him pay child support? You fucking heartless, soulless shitbag, can you not understand that this woman has suffered a horrific psychological and physical ordeal? And on top of that you are completely wrong, studies have shown victims of sexual assault are incredibly prone to violent episodes (against both themselves and others) later in life as a result of the incidents. Therefore her receiving the help she needs at such a crucial point may well prove to be a matter of life and death further down the line.

Quote:

Originally posted by Karmei
“There are doctors everywhere, who don't believe in certain types of healing and medicine. (IE: Herbal, spiritual, experimental, etc.) and they are not criticized for those beliefs.”

Yes. Do you think that could have anything to do with the lack of hard scientific fact to support these methods having any recognizable benefits to the patient?

And how the hell can you, in a single paragraph, accuse my analogy of being ignorant and then say he would be helping her kill her baby? Leaving aside for a moment whether it should be referred to as “her baby” seeing as she did not in any way consent to intercourse, it’s not even a fucking baby! At that stage it isn’t the equivalent of frogspawn, less sentient than the blades of grass you walk over on a daily basis (which to, according to science are living things) with little regard for the damage you are doing to them

*Oh, my mistake, you DO go on to later say you wouldn’t want to

Quote:

Originally posted by Karmei
“prevent a new life from entering the world regardless of the means by which that life was created.”

I was actually being ironic when I wrote that, the idea that you can think like that sickens me to my very core and weakens my faith in human decency. I’d rather go to hell than inflict more suffering on someone in that her position; I guess I’m just not as much of a Sadist as you.
August 29th, 2006, 08:03 PM
Calion

Quote:

Originally posted by bolarithai
I’m sorry, but are you high?

You fucking heartless, soulless shitbag, can you not understand that this woman has suffered a horrific psychological and physical ordeal?

I’d rather go to hell than inflict more suffering on someone in that her position; I guess I’m just not as much of a Sadist as you.

Bolarithai,

Back the fuck off.

She's expressing her beliefs and understanding of the matter and establishing that some people, such as the doctor, surprisingly enough, believe different things. Even if her reasoning is or is not misguided, you don't get to jump up and down screaming shit like that if you want to have a philosophical or moral debate and not make yourself look like a complete and utter fucking asshole.

Having said that, I agree with Leshrak, Kiania, Aristotle and others. Religious beliefs shouldn't be set aside, but neither should they be forced on other people simply because thats the medical practitioner they end up with, and I didn't actually know that's how Plan B works. But then again, I think the entire deal is somewhat different in Australia. I have no idea what it is instead, but i'm interested in finding out now.
August 29th, 2006, 08:16 PM
Gillan

Quote:

Originally posted by bolarithai
I’m sorry, but are you high? That’s the only way I can understand someone making that statement. Would you like the girl to be forced to carry the baby to term as well? * What about when it’s then born, do you think they’re really going to try and track down the “father” and make him pay child support? You fucking heartless, soulless shitbag, can you not understand that this woman has suffered a horrific psychological and physical ordeal? And on top of that you are completely wrong, studies have shown victims of sexual assault are incredibly prone to violent episodes (against both themselves and others) later in life as a result of the incidents. Therefore her receiving the help she needs at such a crucial point may well prove to be a matter of life and death further down the line.

Yes. Do you think that could have anything to do with the lack of hard scientific fact to support these methods having any recognizable benefits to the patient?

And how the hell can you, in a single paragraph, accuse my analogy of being ignorant and then say he would be helping her kill her baby? Leaving aside for a moment whether it should be referred to as “her baby” seeing as she did not in any way consent to intercourse, it’s not even a fucking baby! At that stage it isn’t the equivalent of frogspawn, less sentient than the blades of grass you walk over on a daily basis (which to, according to science are living things) with little regard for the damage you are doing to them

*Oh, my mistake, you DO go on to later say you wouldn’t want to

I was actually being ironic when I wrote that, the idea that you can think like that sickens me to my very core and weakens my faith in human decency. I’d rather go to hell than inflict more suffering on someone in that her position; I guess I’m just not as much of a Sadist as you.

Man Bolarithai you really crossed the line here. You need to chill out. Karmei raised a couple of very, VERY, valid points. I am sorry that you're so narrow-minded, and emotional about this subject, that you can't stop to debate it.

Im curious as to whether or not you're a doctor, a pyschologist, or a physician? Have you ever worked in the mental health field at a level above candy stripper?

If not I am guessing that you know a whole lot less about this subject than the doctor who refused. Moreover, I think that Karmei is just as entitled to express her rational beliefs. I'm sorry that her idea greatly upset you, but that doesn't mean she was wrong.

Doctors are not required to act in a way that they find morally abhorrent, objectional, or wrong. To say that they must seems to be discounting their beliefs for yours. This wasnt a situation where there were no other options, the girl needed the pill right then, rather there was still time.

The girl went through something truly horrible, I hope the man that did this to her is caught and shot in the head. However, that henious act does not override the doctor's moral fiber.

To switch the facts around... your argument seems to say that if a doctor truly believes that abortion is the only way for a woman to lead a healthy life that the woman must take the abortion even if she does not want it. When the patient's wishes conflict with the doctor's moral outlook the patient needs to go somewhere else OR reach a comprimise.
August 29th, 2006, 09:29 PM
Leoryn

Quote:

Originally posted by Gillan
Man Bolarithai you really crossed the line here. You need to chill out. Karmei raised a couple of very, VERY, valid points. I am sorry that you're so narrow-minded, and emotional about this subject, that you can't stop to debate it.

Debating isn't what Bolarithai did, but then again neither is making attacks on Bolarithai for what he did. Ignore the logical fallacies, tell him to chill, go on with your debating.

<Snip irrelevant questions and thinly-veiled attacks about his ability to know about the issue if he isn't a PhD>

Quote:

Doctors are not required to act in a way that they find morally abhorrent, objectional, or wrong. To say that they must seems to be discounting their beliefs for yours. This wasnt a situation where there were no other options, the girl needed the pill right then, rather there was still time.

Doctors are required to provide for their patients, and doctors are hired to perform their jobs. This doctor stated "it was against his Mennonite religion". He worked in an ER.

Putting this particular issue aside: When a victim of a crime, an accident (or anything else) receives treatment they are sent via PUBLIC services to an Emergency Room. PUBLIC services such as 911 will also call Emergency Rooms.

As an intelligent person, he should be working somewhere that won't get in the way of his beliefs. Since some emergencies really are such, he might run into a situation where it TRULY is an emergency and it clashes with his belief.

If this doctor was working in a private practice, I might agree. As it is I think it is rather inappropriate for him to be working in an Emergency Room. Victims of emergencies usually have little choice to go where they wish. Be glad it wasn't a Christian Scientist who wanted to pray your wounds shut.

Quote:

When the patient's wishes conflict with the doctor's moral outlook the patient needs to go somewhere else OR reach a comprimise.

Again. I would agree if it was a private practice (her private Gyno). Unfortunately, emergency rooms (which usually are private) are not places that you should have to "go somewhere else" from, and if the situation had been worse, she might not have had an option.
August 29th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Gillan

Simply because a place is "public" does not mean a doctor has to subject his moral personal beliefs to that of another individual's moral personal beliefs.

If there were a law that required the doctor to do this I would agree with you, but there is no law requiring the doctor to provide a patient with the specific form of pill.
August 29th, 2006, 10:59 PM
kestra

Quote:

Does anyone really think that the pill would have washed away the bad? That it would have in any way aided in her physical recovery? The doctor is not a psychiatrist. It's not his job to do what's best for her mentally. He was there to patch her up after a significant bad thing happened to her. He did that. She's alive and healthy.

Excuse me, but she is certainly not healthy. She's been raped; and speaking from personal experience through a close friend, she was anything but healthy.

It may not take away the pain of the experience, but it's certainly a start.
August 29th, 2006, 11:48 PM
Leoryn

Quote:

Originally posted by Gillan
Simply because a place is "public" does not mean a doctor has to subject his moral personal beliefs to that of another individual's moral personal beliefs.

The place is not just "public", every place can be "public". It is public in the sense that people sometimes don't have a choice on going there. It's not like a supermarket. You don't always get the choice to shop around in an emergency.

You are also missing a major point. A doctor in a private practice can choose patients (disregarding insurance), an emergency room doctor doesn't have that same ability, the patients are given to them. Doctors take oaths as mentioned earlier. He had to have known that working in an emergency room would bring him into positions where his beliefs would conflict with the patients, he should have been responsible enough to take that into consideration.

Quote:

If there were a law that required the doctor to do this I would agree with you, but there is no law requiring the doctor to provide a patient with the specific form of pill.

It isn't merely about giving the specific form of the pill. The issue is much deeper than that. If the situation had involved a circumstance where the woman was injured further or died due to his inaction, he would be responsible.

Let's pull a hypocrisy meter:

If this situation was life threatening, would you still keep the same opinion? [y/n]
If this situation involved your spouse? [y/n]
If he didn't help her because of her gender? [y/n]
...because she was gay? [y/n]
...because she was muslim? [y/n]
...because she was impure? [y/n]
...because she had an atheist tattoo? [y/n]
...because she was not covering her head? [y/n]

Mennonites around here (the conservative groups (i.e. My parents)) will turn their nose up and not serve women who wear tight jeans. It is against their religious beliefs to support a women who dresses promiscuously and tempts men towards the devil. What if he chose the same?

The point is, -he- is imposing his morality on other people. Many people do not -choose- to see him. He works in an emergency room, if he wants to impose this upon people he needs to seek out a private practice where all of his patients can choose to go elsewhere. He will still be breaking the oath he took, but at least people won't be injured because of it.
August 30th, 2006, 12:40 AM
Azyael

Bolarithai, please take a look at help politics. While that file deals particularly with the politics channel, I find it extremly relevent to this thread. Particularly point number 2:

2) I will make every effort to treat participants with respect and refrain
from personal attacks that are not germane to the issues being discussed.

I'm well aware that this is a very emotional topic, but seriously, personal attacks do nothing but add unnecessary tension and derail a perfectly good debate.
August 30th, 2006, 09:23 AM
Leshrak

Quote:

Originally posted by kiania
Yes, they take an oath, but he could be thinking about the potential life of the baby more than the girl. This is unfortunate.

I think you're still missing the point I made that there -is no baby-. Plan B merely prevents an egg from being fertilized.

She didn't go into the emergency room asking for ru-486 to abort anything, she was asking for plan b(birth control). She was forced against her will into intercourse and wanted to make sure she did not bring the child of a sicko rapist into this world. I completely agree with Leoryn's last post:

Quote:

Originally posted by Leoryn
A doctor in a private practice can choose patients (disregarding insurance), an emergency room doctor doesn't have that same ability, the patients are given to them. Doctors take oaths as mentioned earlier. He had to have known that working in an emergency room would bring him into positions where his beliefs would conflict with the patients, he should have been responsible enough to take that into consideration.

-he- is imposing his morality on other people. Many people do not -choose- to see him. He works in an emergency room, if he wants to impose this upon people he needs to seek out a private practice where all of his patients can choose to go elsewhere. He will still be breaking the oath he took, but at least people won't be injured because of it.

Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page