If doctors (or pharmacists) want the choice to impose their own religion on their patients, then at minimum need need to disclose that before ever meeting a patient. Additionally it would disqualify them from accepting any patients that are subsidized with taxpayer money.
This could act like the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes:
WARNING: this physician acts with their own religion in mind before your well being. This could be a danger to your health.
Claiming this is due to religion isn’t accurate. This happens all the time due to plain old misogyny. Women have a tough time getting proper medical treatment at all, not just when it overlaps with religious fruitcakes.
Except it doesn;t. Right now, roughly 20% of all hospitals in the US are owned by a religion; most are Catholic, and about 1/4 of them are ‘some other religion’. That is up from 12% is 1995. What that means is that, in many cases–especially when it’s an emergency–you won’t have any choice at all except to accept religion-tainted healthcare.
I’ve lived in places where the only option covered by my insurance was religions.
It’s becoming a religion issue as Catholic groups take over more and more hospitals, because they’re going to eliminate health care for things that are against their religious principles.
IMO healthcare should not be permitted to have religion interfering.
The people refusing are openly stating that it is because of their religious beliefs. If they try to hide it then it will become apparent very quickly when their opinion always ends up with something other than the thing they oppose.
We could start our own list. When I say “we” I mean someone else, because I’m both not smart enough to build that, and not in the right place in the world.
I was struggling with Biology for my associates degree back in 2007. I happened to teach Tae Kwon Do to the daughter of one of the state university Biology professors (I was only in community College at the time) and I asked the mom to tutor me.
And goddamn. As smart as she was regarding Biology, she bought into Christianity hook, line, and sinker (her husband was a pastor).
The human mind is something else. I work with so many skydaddy fearing engineers. Utterly freaken brilliant people without which civilization ends in fire and feces.
I mean it’s pretty easy. It doesn’t make a good marketing campaign for atheism, but the correlation between education and irreligion seems to be causal the other way. Being irreligious leads one towards more education, but becoming educated does not lead one away from religion… Getting a physics degree or medical degree just does not make you less religious.
That’s true, I witnessed it firsthand, and it’s still baffling to me. Going for a degree in biblical studies and apologetics at a religious university whose draconian fundamentalist views I fully aligned with when I entered is ironically what caused me to actually question the “biblical inerrancy” doctrinal belief.
Reminds me of
Very few people come out of law school sovereign citizens.
One thing people leave out is that there is a LOT to religion and spirituality. Christianity, for example, is not entirely defined in terms of rejecting evolution. That’s just a (tiny) part of their beliefs. When you start in a science-denying religion (worst-case scenario), it’s still only a small percent of your beliefs that contradict the science. So some people stay believers and deny the contradictory science… others stay believers “except the science”.
Many people adhere to non-science-denying religions. So while they are naturally less likely to pick a science major, if they DO pick a science major, nothing in it will knock them out of their faith.
Because medicine doesn’t require you to be atheistic and after a while some really need something that can provide hope however irrational that might be?
No, they should have their medical license revoked. Doctors have to swear an oath to not intentionally or knowingly harm a patient for a reason, because their well being is their top priority. If they can’t adhere to that oath because of arbitrary religious/philosophical/political/whatever beliefs, then they have no business being a medical professional.
I agree. A doctor putting their own religious beliefs over established medical science and the well being of their patient is completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
Unfortunately, the original Hippocratic oath that many doctors swear to includes a line about not performing abortions or prescribing abortifacients.
It is my understanding that, at the time that version of the oath was written, that was less a prohibition of abortion and more a matter of pregnancy and abortion being under the purview of midwives, not physicians.
To that point, I wrote my own medical oath that I will hold to because I think that things like autonomy, free choice, and dignity in death are actually important.
Thank you for clarifying, I did not know that about the Hippocratic Oath. I think it’s really cool that you wrote your own Oath. Thank you for your empathy and service to humankind.
The medical school I’m currently in is an Osteopathic school that leans pretty hard into the Christian traditions/origins of osteopathy, so it’s not terribly uncommon for me to get into philosophical and ethical arguments with my classmates and professors. There are a bunch of them that I know that I’ll never change their minds about most things, but the others who listen in to those arguments might be swayed or at least given a seed of doubt to explore further.
I don't understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods -- shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever -- that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter's side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.
Doctors are held to a different standard because... the mental gymnastics say it's totally fine when it's a woman being denied service I guess?
If these healthcare "professionals" only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.
Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.
Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they're used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.
So let's ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These "professionals" should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.
Don’t get it either. I am sure it is quite possible to be a doctor and not be involved with abortion. I am an engineer and I have strong objections to working on military stuff, so I don’t work for military contractors. Other ones don’t so they do.
I’m going to try again (and you know, maybe I’m just wrong but here’s what I’m seeing).
There are doctors in the medical field already, with specific beliefs that may be sexist but are not generally speaking, sexist people. There is also a shortage of doctors.
Do we really want to throw out an entire doctor (that takes years of training) because they don’t want to do a particular procedure?
There is a secondary point of when is refusal to do a procedure sexism or religion vs genuine medical objection to the harms caused (in their medical opinion).
There is an additional point where I fundamentally think legal compulsion is a terrible tool in a free society and should be used as an absolute last resort.
When it comes down to something as sensitive as medicine, I’d rather my doctor be on board or I find a different doctor vs my doctor being compelled to do something they don’t believe in or outright having no doctor to go to because … there aren’t enough.
There’s also the possibility (and it seems like in the video) that the Roe v Wade issue is also making this doctor far more skiddish even in New York State. We really haven’t heard his side and that really is an important perspective.
Surely there’s somebody else this woman could see as well? There’s no way this guy is the only one that knows about these medications and maybe another doctor would like to use a different medication anyways. There are plenty of other cases of doctors saying “you’re fine” to people regardless of gender or sex and them needing to see a different doctor before getting the right treatment.
I originally went after your analogy because it’s so beyond comparison. You might as well make an analogy between a rocket scientist and a scientologist. There are so many layers of nuance here. Driving politics into medical decisions is part of how we got here … is adding more complex “do I need a lawyer (to do what I believe is the best practice)” to a doctor’s practice really a good idea?
That presumably kind of worked for racism but I still can’t imagine the truly racist doctors were giving their best service; like we didn’t just say “you must see black patients or leave medicine” and then the problems were fixed. There are plenty of black people alive today that still distrust the institution of medicine – including my neighbor who refused to get vaccinated because he doesn’t trust doctors – because of what’s been done in the past.
Based on what I’ve read in r/childfree, it’s far more common than not for doctors to prioritize the needs of a hypothetical husband or fetus over those of a real live woman. I’ve also known someone in real life who couldn’t get a painful medical condition fixed until her mid 30s because the treatment caused sterility. The problem goes way beyond religion; it’s more a matter of institutional sexism and the hubris of doctors thinking they know better than any woman who says she doesn’t want kids.
I’ve been to several different OBs trying to solve my almost-two-year-long-period and every single one of them refuses to do anything for me. I’m just “too young” for them to stop me from having kids one day. And giving me a hysterectomy is “too dangerous” and “risky” when my life isn’t in danger. It doesn’t matter that I’ve tried everything they suggest. Try it again!! It’s so fucking tiring.
I’ve just given up paying the constant doctor fees to see asshole doctors anymore and just figure I’ll either stop having the problem eventually or I’ll be “old enough” (40 maybe?) to finally get surgery… It’s all a nightmare, especially in the religious south…
I’d check with a women’s group or Planned Parenthood for a doctor recommendation. They might know some sane ones.
Having been married to a sane one, I do know they’re spectacularly gunshy of affecting a woman’s fertility because it can get them sued into the ground if they do something like that to someone that someday wants kids. And patients lie, so when you tell a doctor that you don’t want kids, they assume you’re going to change your mind. And I’m not sure if there’s a disclosure you can sign that would hold up in court if you changed your mind one day. So there’s that.
I might try this! I haven’t tried Planned Parenthood yet.
Honestly I feel like I’ve tried everything to make them listen!! I’ve brought my wife with me to the appointments!! I’ve mentioned that I first brought up hysterectomies at 17 when I suffered from multi-week periods! I’ve mentioned I’m asexual and that I’m married and never even had sex so I don’t see kids in the future!
But I do get that doctors have to worry about the liars. I can get why it’s important to have the option to sue a doctor who wronged you but I wish there really was an intensive disclosure you could just do rather than run around until you find a doctor who’s willing to trust you not to regret it. It sucks all around.
Wow, all it took for me was a gay man clutching my testicles during a five minute conversation about how vasectomies aren’t really reversible for me to get clipped. I was only 30 years old
Can you find a doctor near you in the list in the r/childfree sidebar? That’s how I found mine, and she’s great. Good luck to you, I hope things turn out better. I’m sorry this is a thing :(
r/childfree has a list of providers by state that regularly provide hysterectomies. I recommend checking it out, and when you call for an appointment, say that you want a consultation for a hysterectomy and don’t say anything else. I saw one of the providers from that list and she agreed that a hysterectomy was appropriate for me (31 years old, no kids) in part because of how horrible my periods are when I’m not on continuous hormonal birth control. The only reason we didn’t schedule the surgery right then and there is because the Depo shot is working for the moment and she was concerned about how the recovery from surgery would affect my ability to study for medical school and board exams.
I actually tried three different providers from the childfree subreddit. One ended up refusing me entirely due to no insurance (I’m in Georgia and Medicaid hasn’t been expanded yet. Though there was a mini-expansion this year.) and another actually worked with me over the phone for around 2 months without making me go to an appointment and pay just to see if I had enough… “evidence” or something that they could sign off on a hysterectomy. They ended up telling me I’d need to at least re-try several things first. I couldn’t afford the surgery plus 5+ visits several hours away. The third closest option from the childfree list was in another state and couldn’t see me unless I had their state insurance coverage.
I’m trying the Depo shot now from the health department but it hasn’t helped at all. Thank you though! It’s a long road ahead.
Edit: The provider who worked with me over the phone did offer me an ablation but they couldn’t guarantee that it would fix the issues and it would cost me my entire hysterectomy savings fund so I just couldn’t justify it. I may have the term “ablation” wrong because I remember I spoke in depth about it and one other very similar procedure… Either way they were very nice at least and I can see why they are on the list.
Yeah, healthcare in this country is a hot mess in a lot of ways. Something that could help push it in the direction of getting coverage is if you have any family history of things like uterine fibroids, or gynecological cancers. It’s a pretty straightforward thing on the paperwork end of things if cancer prophylaxis is on the list of reasons.
Another thing you could consider in this capitalist hellscape is signing up for a plan off the ACA that has a deductible similar to or less than your savings. That way you would wipe out the deductible immediately, have access to more providers, and have some semblance of coverage for the rest of the year.
“Too risky” is such bullshit anyway. My OBGYN said that at my age (22), the only risks (aside from potential complications that come with ANY surgery) were a slightly early menopause (couple years max) and higher chance of vaginal prolapse (but that they put supports in place and there are things that can be done to correct this if it occurs)
Right?? That’s pretty much what it seemed like to me too. No doctor really wanted to go into it except one mentioned that “any surgery with anesthesia can be dangerous!” and I remember I ditched that doctor on the first visit. I think a lot of it is rural areas have… less than great doctors.
Most of my doctor hopping was at least 9 months ago now so it all kinda just blurs together now.
my friend was having enormous clots come out during her horrifically long periods, losing the amount of blood that was actually making her anemic and causing her problems, and they still didn't want to do anything because she was only in her 30s. thankfully she finally found a doctor who was like 'wow yeah you need that thing taken out of there its killing you' and she got it removed, but the fact she had to go through all that stress and pain to find anyone who would help her is absurd.
Conservative = Regressive. The worst part is that they only pine for it because of nostalgia and nostalgia has a tendency to be viewed through rose colored glasses
I feel for her, but this feels shady as hell. Never mentions the drug, which could be because if people knew, they’d look into it and possibly side against her. Then add she’s a TikTok’r and “content creator” which means all these clicks into her are making her a lot of money.
My guess is that the drug is valproate. It’s used for headaches as well as epilepsy, though obviously other drugs can be used instead.
The problem with valproate is that it is causes birth defects in two thirds (!!) of pregnancies, including spina bifida in 10% of pregnancies.
The World Health Organization and the European Medicine Agency have issued statements/regulations against prescribing it to any women of childbearing potential. Plenty of American docs take a similar approach, regardless of religious beliefs. Just to be crystal clear, neither the WHO nor the EMA pay attention to Dobbs, the SCOTUS, or the GOP.
This sort of thing has been common practice since long before Dobbs. And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects, especially if there is an alternative prescription that is not known to be associated with birth defects. And there almost always is an alternative.
And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects
I’d love to see some kind of citation or a medical professional’s opinion. this seems like bullshit but I’m willing to read supporting evidence if you have any.
So you weren’t born during the Accutane days huh? There’s a reason it’s almost impossible to get prescribed that shit. My friend is blind in one eye because of a drug her mother took BEFORE she was pregnant with her kid… ie “child bearing years”. No doc want to sign the line on many drugs. You can sign all the waivers you want, people still sue and win, even when it’s not justified. You can’t force docs to do things they’re uncomfortable with, remember that oath they take to do no harm? Sometimes that backfires, but it’s something that needs to remain intact for everybodys protection.
Look into Thalomid while you’re at it! I took Vioxx, worked awesome, glad I’m not dead, that shit killed tens of thousands and something like 150k had heart attacks from it.
if the patient isn’t pregnant, tests not pregnant, and says they won’t get pregnant, and if they happen to get pregnant, abort the fetus, what the fuck is your problem? this woman asserted all this to the medical ‘professional’ and was still treated like a child who needed someone else’s permission to receive the treatment she needed.
Ever had a migraine?
Comparing it to Thalidomide? FUCK YOU. The drug company knew it had multiple issues with pregnancy and still put it out. Docs warned each other. This is not the same thing, but you’re trying to scare people into thinking there’s an equivalence. www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415
if the patient isn’t pregnant, tests not pregnant, and says they won’t get pregnant, and if they happen to get pregnant, abort the fetus, what the fuck is your problem? this woman asserted all this to the medical ‘professional’ and was still treated like a child who needed someone else’s permission to receive the treatment she needed
Because people say that, change their minds, and then sue and win after the fact. That’s why. If we weren’t in a lawsuit happy society, and if waivers and legal agreements weren’t ignored by judges, doctors wouldn’t have to be petrified to give shit to people. PEOPLE act like children, and that’s we get treated that way not. She’s proving that with this lawsuit.
Ever had a migraine?
Ya, and they’re fucking terrible, which is why I said I feel for her, but that changes nothing. I couldn’t get on TRT because my levels were “in range” while I was in the shitter over it, Docs hate giving it, Insurance tries to not prescribe it in levels that actually fix anything, so I bypassed them, went to a cash pay clinic and got what I wanted. I didn’t sue the fucking doctor, we live in a anti man society and they’ll get shit on by their practice for doing their job.
Comparing it to Thalidomide? FUCK YOU. The drug company knew it had multiple issues with pregnancy and still put it out. Docs warned each other. This is not the same thing, but you’re trying to scare people into thinking there’s an equivalence. www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415
I’m very aware of it’s history, and it was fucking people up LONG before it got pulled wasn’t it?
Quote me saying “dirty patients lying to their docs”
I said people change thier minds. Can’t keep going without putting words in my mouth huh? Thats telling.
My migraines were addressed. I dont get them anymore. Luckily I had docs that worked at finding the issues and didn’t prescribed me drugs they weren’t comofortable with.
At no point was I not “humane”, nice theatrics though! People like you are the reason docs are like that. Anything you dont like you throw a tantrum like a child, and then relynon virtue signaling others to cry for you with mob mentality. Thanks for proving my point.
Then dont insult yourself by pretended the war against “toxic masculitiy” hasn’t been a very real thing for many years. I doubt you dug yourself a hole deep enough to avoid that.
Yeah fuck toxic masculinity. That has nothing to do with being a man. Toxic masculinity isn’t manhood, it’s the cultural distortion caused by generations of males trying to wear the costume of being a man, while being fragile themselves.
so if anything can go wrong it shouldn’t be prescribed?
Tell that to the millions of men who have high blood pressure but pop viagra all the time. Women get a double standard of treatment and it’s bullshit. This woman didn’t want children and affirmed she would seek an abortion if she became pregnant despite birth control. Docs still put her through this garbage.
taking viagra with a heart condition is dangerous. but these dr’s apply two sets of rules, one for potential breeding stock and one for the rest of humanity. people are not breeding cattle, these docs need to stay in their fucking lanes and practice medicine, stop injecting their religious opinions onto patients healthcare.
Most people who take Viagra have hypertension, because hypertension is the main cause of ED. That doesn’t mean Viagra is dangerous, but you shouldn’t combine it with certain other drugs.
There is a world of difference between valproate and Viagra. Valproate causes birth defects and cognitive delay in 30-50% of pregnancies, which is astonishingly high. If Viagra caused permanent harm to even 5% of users, it would already be off the market.
so patients should be allowed to use drugs even if there are risks involved.
huh, it’s almost like you’re asserting that people should have agency. like the woman in the article, except her docs decided for her that even though she wasn’t going to have a baby either way, so no risk to pregnancy, they wouldn’t put her on that med because…? it’s disgusting.
If you go to a doctor and demand a course of antibiotics for a viral infection, they have been trained to refuse. Because antibiotics do not treat viruses.
For that matter, if you actually do have a simple bacterial infection and immediately demand a last-resort antibiotic like vancomycin, doctors have been trained to refuse. Vancomycin may work on you, but using it may create bacterial resistant strains that will put others at risk. Resistance is especially a threat if you don’t complete your course of antibiotics.
So doctors will offer you a different antibiotic instead, with less risk of creating a resistant strain. Even if you promise to complete your antibiotics, “you get what you get so don’t get upset”.
People have agency, but so do doctors. Doctors are not supposed to be dispensaries who simply give patients whatever they ask for. Doctors have the right to refuse to provide a prescription that is not in keeping with the standard of care, and offer a different prescription instead. You have the right to find a different doctor, or not see a doctor at all.
High blood pressure. Viagra can lower your blood pressure. If you’re taking medication to treat high blood pressure, taking Viagra could cause your blood pressure to drop even further. In some cases, this could make you feel dizzy or lightheaded or cause you to faint. And if you have high blood pressure that’s not controlled (measuring higher than 170/110 mmHg), your heart may not be healthy enough for sex. If you have high blood pressure, talk with your doctor about whether Viagra is right for you. If you’re able to take Viagra, your doctor will usually prescribe a dosage for you that’s lower than the typical dosage.
Oh and this one: Potential for cardiac risk with sexual activity in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease; therefore, treatment for erectile dysfunction generally should not be instituted in men for whom sexual activity is inadvisable because of their underlying cardiovascular status.
I don’t know, because the medication in question hasn’t been identified.
But in general, if a medication causes any birth defects (or, more often, miscarriages) in lab animals then it won’t be used at the equivalent dose in pregnant patients. It would be unethical to try to find out what it does to a human fetus.
But she could become pregnant while taking the medication, which would likely lead to birth defects. Why are you struggling to understand this so badly?
Do you think we should ban women from extreme sports once they reach child bearing age? After all, it’ll put a hypothetical foetus at risk, right?
This is such a faulty line of reasoning as to be laughable. The doctor didn’t offer contraception or an alternative medicine as the WHO gives guidance on, instead he made inappropriate enquiries about her sex life and the quality of her partner.
Pragmatism is giving a patient all the information they need to make a decision, not gatekeeping access to meds because you can’t view women as anything other than a foetus factory.
You are assuming a few things, you’re assuming she hasn’t tried anything else and jumped straight to the deep end. And you’re assuming that it’s ok to say to one group of people they’re incapable of mitigating risks for themselves, and need that to be decided for them. Taking away their autonomy entirely. She’s been to many doctors. She’s tried everything already. This causes people to feel suicidal because of the levels of pain on a frequent basis. And she’s told she just has to live with the pain, her pain is inconsequential in comparison to an imaginary non existent person.
No, I don’t get that. If a drug might result in birth defects, it should only be used as a last resort. And that’s not just me or some random NY docs saying it, it’s the WHOand European Medicines Agency
Do you see the problematic thinking in that line of thinking, though? You are saying a woman can’t be trusted to use a medication if it might cause a birth defect. She can’t be trusted not to fall pregnant, she can’t be trusted to think for herself. She can’t be trusted to keep up with birth control. She can’t be trusted when she says she doesn’t want kids ever. What the first consideration is for, is the *possible child, foremost. Not the person, the actual patient. And you’re quoting American healthcare?
I’m quoting the World Health Organization and a European agency, neither are American health care.
This is a universal approach taken by health care in the US, EU, and across the world. Doctors in general are pragmatists, and only concerned with outcomes. Which means acknowledging that no matter how often patients say “Trust me”, they know a certain number will have a bad outcome. The doctor’s job is to reduce that number.
It’s the same reason why doctors increasingly urge their patients to not keep firearms at home. Even when the patient says they can be trusted with a firearm. It’s not a matter of trust, it’s a matter of statistics.
Firearms and medication aren’t even slightly in the same ballpark. What you are arguing for is that all women of child baring age should never be allowed to mitigate their own risks. And the *potential possible for a fetus, has more consideration that the actual person. If you want to talk firearms. Firearms aren’t banned outright. This drug has been completely and utterly denied to a person because of the *potential to crate another human. So if you compare that to firearms, that’s like saying only women can’t be trusted with firearms, even if they have safe measures to keep them at home. Like a gun safe. I live in Australia, we have guns here, I can go and buy a gun, and there’s safety measures I have to abide by. That’s not what’s happening here. That’s not what you’re arguing. It’s problematic to assume that one gender is incapable of mitigating risks, at all. She can prevent herself getting pregnant while on the drug and says she’s child free, never wants kids. The potential for that to fail is still held in higher regard than the actual harm be caused an actual person, not an imaginary person that doesn’t exist (if you want to call a cluster of cells a person, spoiler it’s not). This would be like you going to the doctors and the doctor won’t give you medication to relieve agonising pain to the extent it commonly causes suicidality, and the doctor says, no you just have to suffer in this pain when nothing else is helping, because you might cause a pregnancy in a woman, and you tell he doctor you promise to use protection and that you’re gay and don’t even sleep with women, and he still doesn’t care, because the potential for damage to someone who doesn’t even exist is more important than you and your actual lived existence. There is a medical rule that has caused people who it applies to harm, and those people are speaking out. You aren’t able to imagine or consider their situation. This is an issue in the USA. So using medical advice from other sources doesn’t really apply. This is happening because of the medical issues in that region specifically, the banning of essential health care for women, which is having huge roll on effects.
Doctors are expected to mitigate risks, too. Valproate-induced spina bifida is a real problem, and doctors share a responsibility to prevent it when it won’t harm their patients. They share this responsibility because they previously tried making patients entirely responsible for mitigating their risk, and that approach has failed.
Nobody said the woman in the article “has to suffer”. They didn’t refuse to give her any medicine, they refused to give her a particular medicine. There are plenty of alternatives, and in fact the doctor in this article wrote the woman a prescription for a different medicine. But of course, some people only want what they can’t have.
Despite what patients often think, doctors are not drug dispensaries. It’s not their job - and never has been - to give patients the latest drug they read about online, or the drug that worked for their friend, or the drug that someone said “ask your doctor” about. If there is a less risky drug that can treat the patient, they will prescribe that instead of what the patient wants.
To take another example, vancomycin is an antibiotic of last resort. Bacteria have not yet developed widespread resistance to it, so it is reserved for patients who have antibiotic-resistant infections, like MRSA. If it is used too much, theoretically bacteria can finally develop resistance to it. And theoretically, people in the future with MRSA may suffer.
Next time you get antibiotics, try telling your doctor “No, I want a vancomycin prescription”. You will be disappointed. They are going to give you what they think will get the job done without incurring unnecessary risks, for you or other people.
I don’t think so. But if a med is not to be used in pregnant patients, then it’s only used as a last resort for patients who could become pregnant while taking it.
Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it’s standard CYA for health care providers.
In the case of valproate, there are even European regulations against using it in women during childbearing years.
Where are we drawing the line here? Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test
Nearly all hospitals have long required pregnancy tests for some things, like getting a CT scan (which involves radiation exposure). And if the test is positive, the doctor is supposed to consider alternatives.
Exactly. It’s not a “where do we draw the line” thing here, the line is already drawn as you allude to. It’s not just CT scans as well, some actual medications need pregnancy tests or at least active contraception use. Roaccutane, methotrexate and other DMARDs etc - everything in medicine is a risk vs reward thing and I’m sure many patient would prefer not to be on a drug that messes up their fetus whether they’re planning to keep it or not in the case they get pregnant. You’d rather just avoid the risk of that situation occuring altogether.
You cut the quote off, that’s just part of what was said. That quote in full doesn’t just talk about a pregnancy test, but that on top of and as well as sterilisation, before being allowed to take a necessary drug.
I agree with the points made in this article, but I don’t think they did due diligence in reporting on what doctors or hospitals blacklisted her and why. I’d like to know the reasoning behind why she was denied treatment everywhere locally. I suspect that there’s an interesting story there.
Yeah there’s an interesting story, the doctors lied about her to other doctors:
According to Rule, after she shared audio recordings of her interactions with the neurologist on TikTok, an employee at the hospital contacted another hospital in the area, alleging that Rule livestreamed her appointments. This led to Rule’s removal from the second hospital, Malta Medical (also under Albany Medical Health Partners), in the middle of treatment for her cluster headaches. Rule denies livestreaming.
Right, and it’s great that we hear her side of the story as it truly is an injustice. I also noticed that the writer did say that they wouldn’t comment on ongoing litigation, but still, what about all the other hospitals that blacklisted her, right?
Also, not a smart move on her part publicizing that stuff before the trial, but that’s neither here nor there I suppose.
Anyway, I hope she wins the shit out of that lawsuit!
I can’t fathom how women deal with this bullshit day in and day out. Yeah, hopefully she wins enough to give pause to the other assholes who want to tell people what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
Me either. My wife, for example, was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, IMO, a total cop-out… and now they see in imaging that the pain is likely from arthritis.
This is a messy story. It has been covered by other publications. Other publications have included additional details. I suspect that what happened may not be so clearly black and white as the story presented by Jezebel.
I visited last month and it made me realize just how bad it’s gotten. I had it in my head that I was in a reasonably safe area of the US, but it’s getting worse. I may have to actually consider the asylum for trans people if it becomes a reality :~;
Do your damnedest to keep them away. I’ve come to realize that the core of modern conservativism bypasses nationalities. All Western conservative leaders have the same goals.
(Conservative here meaning socially conservative largely. Fascists, not all capitalists necessarily)
This kind of shit makes me sad every time I see it. Unbelievable the lengths some women have to go to get the medication they need. I am so tired of these types of doctors.
Not just medication, but just choices regarding their bodies in general. It’s appalling. A friend of mine doesn’t want kids at all. She has been denied twice to have an elective hysterectomy. The doctors told her they won’t in case she decides to have kids.
She can always ask for a bilateral salpingectomy. A lot of CF women have successfully had that done as IVF is still possible. If, however, she has endometriosis which is why she actually wants the hysterectomy done, then that’s a fair bit harder. I’m unsure if there’s a CF community on Lemmy, but the one on the other site had a lot of resources on how to talk with medical practitioners to get referred to someone who would do the treatment.
Yep, the reddit community had (and still has, afaik) a community gathered list of providers in each state where community members had had luck getting sterilized.
I found my OBGYN through this list and actually have my hysterectomy a week from today. Minimal convincing of the doctor necessary - just explained why I wanted it (terrible, heavy periods with heavy cramps AND I never want kids) and she essentially said “your body, your choice” and got me scheduled. Had to wait a month due to insurance requiring a wait period but no other issues.
The FDA mandates that such drugs are only dispensed to patient with evidence of pregnancy testing and contraception use. (Which is IMHO common sense to require.)
I did not find information if the woman did a pregnancy test and used a reliable contraceptive.
It says right in the video in the article that she uses contraception and would have an abortion if it failed. I’m sure she would’ve taken a pregnancy test, but that doctor wasn’t having it. What more do you need to feel like this woman should be “allowed” to receive life-saving medication? She was literally passing out from pain. Then was prescribed a med that dangerously drops her already low blood pressure.
I can’t, for technical reasons, watch the TikTok video If she uses contraception and no contraindications are present she should by all means receive an effective treatment.
It would be interesting to hear of the final ruling.
I still have the hunch that is more like: according to the treatment guidelines you are supposed to try out this two other drugs first because they have less side effects and are safer.
Or maybe the MDs in this hospital are all bigoted lunatics. I don’t know.
Propably I have some normalicy bias. I actually don’t think she is lying. She might not believe the reasons the MDs do not want to prescribe her the drug at the moment.
For example the text says things like this: He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.” That sound bad but if you look at the product label:
Patient Information
Important questions
…
Are you pregnant? Do you think you might be pregnant? Are you trying to become pregnant? Are you sexually active and not using birth control? Are you breast feeding?
Edit: this article gives a bit more info. Inclusive a link to the audio recording (which is still can not access thanks to TikTok). The infos provided are in favor of the patient.
What more do you need to feel like this woman should be “allowed” to receive life-saving medication?
She was prescribed medication. Did they leave that out of the article?
Rule asks whether the drug would be a very effective treatment if she were a post-menopausal woman. The doctor says, “Yes, it would be.” In a longer version of the recording, obtained by the Times Union, it’s not clear whether the doctor is trying to discourage Rule from ever getting an abortion, or is awkwardly trying to communicate the risks of the medication. Rule said the doctor prescribed a different medication that has other negative side effects.
Yes, I mentioned that in the last sentence of my comment. She said in the video that her blood pressure dropping to a lethal level is very possible due to pre-existing issues.
No, that not! The drug she wants is not a pain killer.
Maybe, she didn’t want to make a pregnancy test and did not want to use the pill or spiral, etc. The doctors can only give her the drug if these conditions are met (she can not get pregnant at the moment). Because it is clearly stated on the packaging label and accompanying documentation. If they would give it anyway they would be personally liable (and responsible) for a possible stillbirth or handicapped child.
This is only speculation on my part. Maybe it is all totally different.
Glens falls hospital is a toilet with entire floors that are abandoned. They don’t even have fans for the women in the birthing center because “people keep stealing them” according to the staff so all this horribly hot summer, women that are about to have or just had a baby have to sit in a pool of sweat with no moving air in their rooms. It cost several thousand a day to stay there, but they can’t provide $20 desk fans.
Add comment