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

I'm not sure if this is relavent at all, but in Plan B, there COULD already be a baby. We are simply preventing that baby from actually growing. The Morning After pill thickens the uterine wall, making it impossible for the zygote to implant itself. Technically, there is a baby because the sperm and the egg has already met to form the zygote, but the pill keeps the cells from attaching to the uterine wall.

This, of course, happens naturally all the time. There's no guarantee that the zygote will actually implant itself, even if the egg is fertilized, much to the consternation of fertility doctors.

As science progresses further and further, I think it becomes harder and harder to debate whether or not there's technically a baby and whether or not we're technically performing an abortion.

There's so many strong feelings on this issue, and I wonder what these opinions would be like if it were 50 years ago when rape victims had no such thing as the morning after pill or abortion. A doctor was required to help a woman's physical injuries, and perhaps, she would have to go to a psychologist for her mental injuries. Is pregnany a physical injury?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
I'm not sure if this is relavent at all, but in Plan B, there COULD already be a baby. We are simply preventing that baby from actually growing. The Morning After pill thickens the uterine wall, making it impossible for the zygote to implant itself. Technically, there is a baby because the sperm and the egg has already met to form the zygote, but the pill keeps the cells from attaching to the uterine wall.

---

According to this article, there is doubt that the pill actually prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall; it only prevents the release of the egg from the ovary. This is due to the results of studies performed on lab animals, and a voluntary study done on human women:

Quote:

---

Croxatto and his colleagues exposed female rats to very high doses of levonorgestrel at various stages in their reproductive cycle, either before or after ovulation or before or after mating. “When a woman uses emergency contraception,” Croxatto explained, “she does not know whether she is taking the pills before or after ovulation or before or after fertilization.” The researchers found that levonorgestrel inhibited ovulation totally or partially, depending on the timing of treatment and the dose administered. However, the drug had no effect on fertilization or implantation when it was administered shortly before or after mating or before implantation.

Next, Croxatto and his colleagues studied the effects of levonorgestrel given to Cebus monkeys either before ovulation or postcoitally. The reproductive cycle of each animal was monitored by ultrasound examination of the ovaries, vaginal smears, and measurements of blood hormone levels, in order to time the administration of levonorgestrel. The researchers found that, when given before ovulation, levonorgestrel was able to inhibit or postpone ovulation. Alternatively, when it was given after mating—at a time when fertilization was believed to have occurred (on the basis of previous monitoring)—the pregnancy rates observed were identical in cycles treated with levonorgestrel or with a placebo.

---

However, Wikipedia reports, "these studies have also shown that, in women who ovulate despite taking ECP before ovulation, there are changes in certain hormones such as progesterone and in the length of their luteal phase.[4] These secondary changes might inhibit implantation in cases where fertilization occurs despite ECP use. Because of the difficulty of studying pre-implanted embryos inside the uterus and fallopian tubes, both sides of this debate concede that completely proving or disproving the theory may be impossible.[28][2].

-

Anyway, I think we're getting off track here- my point is this guy shouldn't be working in the ER if he's going to impose his moral beliefs on others.

I might be more inclined to understand him denying the pill to a 16 year old girl who forgot to use a condom with her boyfriend, but even so, he shouldn't be doing it in the ER. This girl was -raped- and came with her -mother- for help.

I believe that in any case, especially one such as this where it simply comes down to a case of a doctor's moral/ethical views versus a patient's (legal) wishes, the actual treatment imposed should ALWAYS default to the patient. Case closed, no ifs, ands, or buts. I believe that the existence of American privatized health care versus social health care reinforces this, as you are paying for a particular service rather than being treated by committee for the common good.

More on a similar theme:

http://news.scotsman.com/internation...?id=1290422006

THE Catholic Church in Colombia has excommunicated the medical team that performed the country's first legal abortion on an 11-year-old girl who was raped by her stepfather.

"The life of this girl has fallen into the hands of criminals, who must suffer all the weight of the [Holy] law," said Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo.

Hector Lemus, the head of the Bolivar Hospital in Bogotá, where the operation was performed, said he accepted full responsibility for the abortion and asked that excommunication be lifted for the rest of his staff.

"I have a clear conscience," said Dr Lemus. "I saw the face of that girl when she arrived at the hospital, distraught over her pregnancy and her lost childhood. I also saw her face when she left."

Many of the staff at Bolivar Hospital are devout Catholics and took the news of the excommunication very hard. One worker said: "This means I cannot receive communion or any of the Holy Sacraments."

Others were defiant. "This is just hypocrisy from the Catholic Church," said one nurse. "We performed an operation that had been legally approved by the state, and we have been punished by the Church."

The girl, who was carrying an eight-week-old foetus, had been abused by her stepfather, now in custody, since she was seven.

I thought Bolarithai made good points and I liked what he wrote. I second his opinions.

As for my opinions.... Christians don't care about babies. They don't give a shit what kind of a life the baby may be condemned to, or that the mother might not be able to adequately care for it, that it may not have a father, enough food to survive, medicine to keep it healthy, or even a loving family. No, all christians want is for babies to be born and what happens after is neither here nor there for them.

Ugh, I'm trying hard to stay on topic and away from religious debate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
THE Catholic Church in Colombia has excommunicated the medical team that performed the country's first legal abortion on an 11-year-old girl who was raped by her stepfather.

---

I wish that church would hurry up and evaporate.

Azoryn -- I like your writing skills.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Savaric

As for my opinions.... Christians don't care about babies. They don't give a shit what kind of a life the baby may be condemned to, or that the mother might not be able to adequately care for it, that it may not have a father, enough food to survive, medicine to keep it healthy, or even a loving family. No, all christians want is for babies to be born and what happens after is neither here nor there for them.

---

Man, you need to step of the rhetoric bandwagon. This statement is just as bad as saying all arabs are muslim and all muslims are terrorists. It's a close minded, ignorant statement. Not all Christians are anti-abortion. Why? Not all Christians are Catholics and not all Catholics are anti-abortion (see Malacasta's post that you seemed to endorse).

What the problem is are that there are two different groups here who really dont seem to care about the two (maybe three if there has been a pregnancy) people involved. There are those who are so adamant that a woman always has the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason that they disregard the baby and the doctor... sometimes it seems that they are arguing that the woman must terminate the baby just to make a statement. On the other side there are those who completely disregard the will of the woman seeking the abortion saying that no matter what the child must be birthed.

Both of these sides are ludicrious. Neither side is willing to admit that on one hand no one, no one, has complete freedom of their bodies. In this country men can be drafted, people can be imprisioned or executed. This cuts against the arguments both sides make because while the woman should be allowed some latitude in making decisions that effect her life such as will this baby result in her life ending, is it the product of a rape; the community has an interest in new lives being produced.

All in all I cannot say what this doctor did was radical, or even wrong. As someone who has had experience with emergency rooms I can say that if this story was reported accurately, and I doubt it was, the young girl had other options available to her to get the pill - such as seeing another doctor, going over his head, and so on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/s...rc=rss&feed=12

This is my puzzled face. You'd think if the Catholic church did do this, they wouldn't be the type to go and lie about it, lest ass whooping occur.

Journalistic integrity? Who needs that?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karmei
If she wanted the treatment bad enough, she could have simply asked the nurse to see another doctor. How hard is that?

---

And what if the next doctor also refused to prescribe the medicine? I think a lot of people here are assuming that the 2nd doctor the woman tries would automatically give the pill to her.

Let's extend this to the extreme. What if all of the doctors in her community refuse to prescribe that medication?

Here's another analogy. Suppose a driving examiner refuses to issue a driver's license to a woman because according to his religious beliefs, women shouldn't be seen in public (and therefore be driving). Would you be arguing that it would be simple for this woman to simply be tested for a drivers license elsewhere? I know that this situation that I have described is actually illegal; my purpose in raising it is to examine the underlying moral context independent to the legal concerns.

By the way, I realize that I haven't really said anything in this post, and have just offered a few questions for everyone to think about.

One more thing,

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karmei
She wasn't dying

---

According to Wikipedia, in the United States, the maternal death rate was 17 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2000. There is actually a health risk associated with going through with the pregnancy. In that sense, Plan B could potentially save the life of the woman by terminating the pregnancy. In case you're wondering about the risk of side-effects related to taking plan B, they are described here (link) as being "transitory and mild." This was apparantly a factor in the decision by the FDA to make Plan B available over the counter as of august 24th.