Will Someone Please Pay for my Rubbers

[guido911]

No need to bother Guido.  All the men in here have infinitely more experience in what it is to be a woman, especially one with a problem pregnancy than any woman does.

And there is the issue-ender.

[nathanm]

Nate, you do not know what you are talking about. You have no idea what the process is for prescribing medication, the minimum amount of information which needs to be provided to a patient, or any other part of the physician-patient process other than your personal experience. You certainly have displayed ZERO awareness as to the standards of care for emergency (or any other ER personnel for that matter) in this thread but rather solely seek to suggest your own inexperienced and irrelevant opinions are correct.

You say much, but manage to say nothing of substance. If you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to provide facts. I like facts. I don't care much for pointless bluster about what you've done or not done. That tells me nothing useful. It is useful when you share what you know, rather than just sharing your conclusions. It also makes for more interesting conversations.

[guido911]

You say much, but manage to say nothing of substance. If you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to provide facts. I like facts. I don't care much for pointless bluster about what you've done or not done. That tells me nothing useful. It is useful when you share what you know, rather than just sharing your conclusions. It also makes for more interesting conversations.

I have already told you what the issues are and you choose not to listen. Notwithstanding whatever world you operate, in the realm of medicine, a doctor simply does not pick up a prescription pad and writes down what the patient wants or what you expect the physician to write. That is the end of the story. You can muse about "what ifs" or "damn those theocrats" or ponder the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It is meaningless. If you want to debate whether doctors should check their religious beliefs at the door, then I'm done. I'm pro-life and your pro-choice.  There's no changing our minds.

A physician in this state has statutory protection for their conscience-based decisions and I have told you how providing the sort of care you expect (or that mother) is perhaps inconsistent with the standard of care. Do you know what the standard of care is for emergency room physicians? Because what I am reading are the opinions of a person who has perhaps scanned a prescription insert. 

[custosnox]

I have already told you what the issues are and you choose not to listen. Notwithstanding whatever world you operate, in the realm of medicine, a doctor simply does not pick up a prescription pad and writes down what the patient wants or what you expect the physician to write. That is the end of the story. You can muse about "what ifs" or "damn those theocrats" or ponder the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It is meaningless. If you want to debate whether doctors should check their religious beliefs at the door, then I'm done. I'm pro-life and your pro-choice.  There's no changing our minds.

A physician in this state has statutory protection for their conscience-based decisions and I have told you how providing the sort of care you expect (or that mother) is perhaps inconsistent with the standard of care. Do you know what the standard of care is for emergency room physicians? Because what I am reading are the opinions of a person who has perhaps scanned a prescription insert. 

The problem is that the medical decision was made based on a religious bias, not medical.  But as far as the whole plan B goes, I really don't see what the issue is on all of this since apparently her mother was there.  What is stopping her from buying it for her daughter OTC?  That could have been done on the way to the ER.

[Townsend]

No need to bother Guido.  All the men in here have infinitely more experience in what it is to be a woman, especially one with a problem pregnancy than any woman does.

I mean we all know pregnancy is simply a binary problem.  On or off, no repercussions, no responsibility. 

Interesting way to flip that.  You think all men should lay off women's medical care?

I can see how that would make sense.  No men, including anyone in the government, clergy, etc can make decisions for women's medical.  Only women can make the decisions?

[Conan71]

Interesting way to flip that.  You think all men should lay off women's medical care?

I can see how that would make sense.  No men, including anyone in the government, clergy, etc can make decisions for women's medical.  Only women can make the decisions?

No T, I'm making the point that people who don't have a uterus are treating pregnancy like it's some simple binary process which doesn't involve hormones, emotions, other physical ramifications, and a fledgling life which has no say in how it's treated or not treated.

Certainly, you have a firsthand experience of the complexities of it now

Maybe I'm simply tired of hearing the "War On Women" meme which primarily seems to come from men.

[Townsend]

Maybe I'm simply tired of hearing the "War On Women" meme which primarily seems to come from men.

You may hear it primarily by men because that's who's in office and they get coverage.

Now both sides of the aisle are saying "war on women".

Let's have a vote just by women and see how all these questions pan out.

[guido911]

The problem is that the medical decision was made based on a religious bias, not medical. 

Why is that the decision was religious based a "problem"? Believe it or not, doctors, like lawyers and anyone else, are human beings. They can't check their personal views at the ER doors. Seriously, take a look at the statute I provided, and also think about the standard of care issues I have raised, and then think about whatever real "harm" has happened. This is a massive mountain out of a mole hill situation, with the mole hill being a creation of religious intolerance.

[Townsend]

creation of religious intolerance.

You mean because the doctor was religious she couldn't tolerate the correct treatment?

[guido911]

You mean because the doctor was religious she couldn't tolerate the correct treatment?

Are you suggesting that giving EC is part of giving the "correct treatment" following a sexual assault/rape? What is your source for that assumption? Where is that in the standard of care for emergency room physicians or is that your definition/understanding of what amounts to "correct treatment" Dr. T?

This is the real problem when lay persons in a very touchy subject weigh in when there is FAR FAR more to it than religion. Also, if giving EC were "correct", then why are their conscience clauses in so many states?

edited for dumbassedness.

[Townsend]

Are you suggesting that giving EC is part of giving the "correct treatment" following a sexual assault/rape?

So your opinion is it's wrong to do it?

[guido911]

So your opinion is it's wrong to do it?

No. But in my opinion it is within the standard of care if a doctor refuses. And that's really all I am saying here. Also, because something is not wrong does not render the opposite correct. It's just different. Now my head hurts.

[Townsend]

because something is not wrong does not render the opposite correct. It's just different.

Agreed.

I think any victim should have the right to all possible treatment regardless of a doctor's religious choices.  (it was in Western OK.  It was because of religion.)

[guido911]

I think any victim should have the right to all possible treatment regardless of a doctor's religious choices.  (it was in Western OK.  It was because of religion.)

I cannot disagree with that statement at all.

[Townsend]

I cannot disagree with that statement at all.

And now we open the bourbon.