Rape victim denied emergency contraception by ER nurse. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Rape victim denied emergency contraception by ER nurse.


Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 17:44
Why? Why, because of the nurse's religious beliefs of course.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/31/492878/rape-victim-refused-emergency-contraception-in-oklahoma/

I'm really seriously considering voting for Obama.

Edit: It wasn't a nurse, it was the examining doctor. I guess I missed that part of their oath where they say "Do no harm, except where my religious beliefs mandate.

Slackinoff
05-31-2012, 17:51
Delete

Kingarthurhk
05-31-2012, 18:39
The world is filled with wierd doctors. Have you ever met a normal one? I haven't.

4TS&W
05-31-2012, 18:45
Nothing would stop her from picking up at a local pharmacy. She doesn't need the Doc to give it to her. She could always get it from another Doc. No need to force this doc from providing if he/she is opposed to it.

steve1988
05-31-2012, 18:51
I believe that life begins at conception. I don't believe this because of any kind of religion. I believe that abortion or anti-implantation drugs are the moral equivalent of murder. Giving someone that drug would make me an accessory to murder, according to my moral standards. Should someone be able to force me to break my moral code? Why does religion have to enter into it at all?

steve1988
05-31-2012, 18:52
Furthermore, "do no harm" could easily be applied to the unborn child. No oath broken there.

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 18:59
Nothing would stop her from picking up at a local pharmacy. She doesn't need the Doc to give it to her. She could always get it from another Doc. No need to force this doc from providing if he is opposed to it.

BS. If you can't do your job because your religion prohibits you from performing every function that job may require then find a new job if you're so devout.

You can get aspirin over the counter. If you go to the ER with a condition that requires aspirin AND GETS WORSE THE LONGER YOU GO WITHOUT IT and the doc says, "Sorry, against my religion!" that's screwed up.

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 19:03
I believe that life begins at conception. I don't believe this because of any kind of religion. I believe that abortion or anti-implantation drugs are the moral equivalent of murder. Giving someone that drug would make me an accessory to murder, according to my moral standards. Should someone be able to force me to break my moral code? Why does religion have to enter into it at all?


You might want to consider that before you go into the medical field. You're moral issues, however you arrived at them, have no bearing on the patient's treatment.

steve1988
05-31-2012, 19:06
You might want to consider that before you go into the medical field. You're moral issues, however you arrived at them, have no bearing on the patient's treatment.

So if someone needs a heart transplant, I should just go murder someone to get a heart? By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I was interested in the medical field. My job is pretty much the opposite of a doctor.

4TS&W
05-31-2012, 19:14
BS. If you can't do your job because your religion prohibits you from performing every function that job may require then find a new job if you're so devout.

You can get aspirin over the counter. If you go to the ER with a condition that requires aspirin AND GETS WORSE THE LONGER YOU GO WITHOUT IT and the doc says, "Sorry, against my religion!" that's screwed up.

I disagree. She wasn't going to get anymore pregnant without an abortion pill than if she waited a few hours. She had to go somewhere else for the rape kit anyway. It would have diffused the situation if the doc had just got another doc that did not have an issue with dispensing the pill.

No pressing need to force the doc to murder the fetus that likely doesn't even exist. You can always get another one to do that. Sounds like you just want to be outraged.

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 20:03
So if someone needs a heart transplant, I should just go murder someone to get a heart? By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I was interested in the medical field. My job is pretty much the opposite of a doctor.

Murdering someone for their heart is equal to preventing the implantation of a cell that's divided a few hundred times? And you arrived at this conclusion by purely non-religious means?

:rofl:

What would you consider worse, a woman taking birth control pills or drowning her 10 year old child in the bathtub?

Tilley
05-31-2012, 20:17
You might want to consider that before you go into the medical field. You're moral issues, however you arrived at them, have no bearing on the patient's treatment.

What rights does an unborn human being have?

Altaris
05-31-2012, 20:21
You might want to consider that before you go into the medical field. You're moral issues, however you arrived at them, have no bearing on the patient's treatment.

That would apply to any job field. I would like to see a car salesman tell the boss, sorry I can't work and sell cars on the sabbath. I have a feeling he would be shown the door.

Tilley
05-31-2012, 20:24
I'm really seriously considering voting for Obama.

Edit: It wasn't a nurse, it was the examining doctor. I guess I missed that part of their oath where they say "Do no harm, except where my religious beliefs mandate.

Are you freaking crazy!!! Step away from the ballot box...

Okay...let's reason together. Let's say you are an ER doctor, and I am a victim of a gunshot about to die. I look up at your kind face and say, "Please kind sir, I am about to die. Please say a prayer for me to Jesus right now so I can go to Heaven."


What do you do?

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 20:31
I disagree. She wasn't going to get anymore pregnant without an abortion pill than if she waited a few hours. She had to go somewhere else for the rape kit anyway. It would have diffused the situation if the doc had just got another doc that did not have an issue with dispensing the pill.

No pressing need to force the doc to murder the fetus that likely doesn't even exist. You can always get another one to do that. Sounds like you just want to be outraged.

The drug is less effective the longer you wait to take it so yes, she was in a situation where she was at greater risk of pregnancy the longer she went without the pill. And the doc isn't murdering anyone by handing her a pill. You can place that blame on the rape victim if you're one of those. This is quite a different situation from late term abortions.

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 20:33
What rights does an unborn human being have?

Does a woman have a right to choose who impregnates her, even if by force?

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 20:37
Are you freaking crazy!!! Step away from the ballot box...

Okay...let's reason together. Let's say you are an ER doctor, and I am a victim of a gunshot about to die. I look up at your kind face and say, "Please kind sir, I am about to die. Please say a prayer for me to Jesus right now so I can go to Heaven."


What do you do?

How does that compare to the situation at all? If prayer had gone through drug trials and been proven to be as effective as any medication that passes I'd not only be happy to pray for you but I'd be doing so as a devout believer in god.

void *
05-31-2012, 20:46
Let's say you are an ER doctor, and I am a victim of a gunshot about to die. I look up at your kind face and say, "Please kind sir, I am about to die. Please say a prayer for me to Jesus right now so I can go to Heaven."

What do you do?

I would hope that doctor wouldn't do something that would make that person think they were judgmental, whether the prayer was said or not.

Which is really the thing that bugs me about this. If you're a doctor and your personal belief system says you can't hand the lady the pill, fine, don't do it. Hand her off to someone who will, or make sure that the next hospital will, or whatever ... but the last thing a rape victim needs is a doctor who refuses the pill with a "judgmental attitude".

SIGlock
05-31-2012, 20:48
I'm really seriously considering voting for Obama.

"Stupid is as stupid does"
Forrest Gump

Travelin' Jack
05-31-2012, 20:55
What would you consider worse, a woman taking birth control pills or drowning her 10 year old child in the bathtub?

Abstinence is murder! :supergrin:

steve1988
05-31-2012, 20:57
Murdering someone for their heart is equal to preventing the implantation of a cell that's divided a few hundred times? And you arrived at this conclusion by purely non-religious means?

:rofl:

What would you consider worse, a woman taking birth control pills or drowning her 10 year old child in the bathtub?

If you believe that life begins at conception, then it follows that they are the moral equivalent. When you say that it is only a bunch of cells, aren't we all? How many times must a cell divide before the entity can be called a person?

On a side note, I am not against contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent conception (obviously). Since conception does not take place, life does not take place, according to what I believe. Anti-implantation drugs take effect after conception. Therefore, anti-implantation drugs take lives.

Some would say that I have no right to "force my beliefs on others" through the law. I would reply that the government exists to protect the rights of people, and I posit that the life of the unborn child (right to life being the most important of our rights) trumps the right of the mother's comfort.

Another question to ask: If a man assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, would you consider that worse than simple assault? If so, why?

Tilley
05-31-2012, 21:18
If you believe that life begins at conception, then it follows that they are the moral equivalent. When you say that it is only a bunch of cells, aren't we all? How many times must a cell divide before the entity can be called a person?

On a side note, I am not against contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent conception (obviously). Since conception does not take place, life does not take place, according to what I believe. Anti-implantation drugs take effect after conception. Therefore, anti-implantation drugs take lives.

Some would say that I have no right to "force my beliefs on others" through the law. I would reply that the government exists to protect the rights of people, and I posit that the life of the unborn child (right to life being the most important of our rights) trumps the right of the mother's comfort.

Another question to ask: If a man assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, would you consider that worse than simple assault? If so, why?

Good Post

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 21:24
If you believe that life begins at conception, then it follows that they are the moral equivalent. When you say that it is only a bunch of cells, aren't we all? How many times must a cell divide before the entity can be called a person?

On a side note, I am not against contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent conception (obviously). Since conception does not take place, life does not take place, according to what I believe. Anti-implantation drugs take effect after conception. Therefore, anti-implantation drugs take lives.

Some would say that I have no right to "force my beliefs on others" through the law. I would reply that the government exists to protect the rights of people, and I posit that the life of the unborn child (right to life being the most important of our rights) trumps the right of the mother's comfort.

Another question to ask: If a man assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry, would you consider that worse than simple assault? If so, why?

Do you think sperm and egg cells don't qualify as life? Do you know that women's bodies regularly reject fertilized eggs when conditions are not just right and even fully developed fetuses based on something so trivial as a blood type incompatibility between the parents. What makes this aspect of chemically altering biological function any different than any other?

Meanwhile, other pregnancies are carried to full term and babies are born with the most horrible deformations imaginable. This isn't some sacred system that was running flawlessly until we intervened. Just like all other aspects of biology, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and I see no problem with getting under the hood (so to speak) and tinkering around in search of a desired result. Just stay out from under other people's hoods.

steve1988
05-31-2012, 21:32
Do you think sperm and egg cells don't qualify as life? Do you know that women's bodies regularly reject fertilized eggs when conditions are not just right and even fully developed fetuses based on something so trivial as a blood type incompatibility between the parents. What makes this aspect of chemically altering biological function any different than any other?

Meanwhile, other pregnancies are carried to full term and babies are born with the most horrible deformations imaginable. This isn't some sacred system that was running flawlessly until we intervened. Just like all other aspects of biology, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't and I see no problem with getting under the hood (so to speak) and tinkering around in search of a desired result. Just stay out from under other people's hoods.

What you are saying (from my point of view) is that bad things happen to people that are sometimes convenient for other people. Therefore, we should make those bad things happen when they are convenient.

The crux of the matter is where you personally believe a collection of cells becomes a human being. Those that believe life begins after birth will always be pro-choice because anything but pro-choice would be an arbitrary restriction on someones freedom. Those that believe life exists before birth will always be pro-life because the implication of abortion is that one person's life is forfeit because of another person's convenience. Neither side will ever convince the other that they are right because of this difference in viewpoints, no matter the origin of those viewpoints.

Animal Mother
05-31-2012, 23:12
What you are saying (from my point of view) is that bad things happen to people that are sometimes convenient for other people. Therefore, we should make those bad things happen when they are convenient.

The crux of the matter is where you personally believe a collection of cells becomes a human being. Those that believe life begins after birth will always be pro-choice because anything but pro-choice would be an arbitrary restriction on someones freedom. Those that believe life exists before birth will always be pro-life because the implication of abortion is that one person's life is forfeit because of another person's convenience. Neither side will ever convince the other that they are right because of this difference in viewpoints, no matter the origin of those viewpoints.Perhaps you can explain what causes you to take the position that life begins at conception, rather than at some other point. How does a zygote differ from any other cell in the body, other than the addition of the external genetic material?

steve1988
06-01-2012, 02:22
Perhaps you can explain what causes you to take the position that life begins at conception, rather than at some other point. How does a zygote differ from any other cell in the body, other than the addition of the external genetic material?

It is, in fact, the "addition of the external genetic material" that makes the difference for me. Where do you draw the line? Would you think partial birth abortion is morally okay? What about a viable third trimester fetus? At what point does the entity stop being "a collection of cells" and start becoming a person?

As I said before, the answer will be different for different people, but the matter will never be settled either way because some people will view it as killing an innocent child, while others will view it as government infringement on our freedom. Anyone who has strong principles either way will never abandon their side.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 03:13
It is, in fact, the "addition of the external genetic material" that makes the difference for me. Where do you draw the line? Would you think partial birth abortion is morally okay? What about a viable third trimester fetus? At what point does the entity stop being "a collection of cells" and start becoming a person? I didn't ask when you believed it becomes a person though, I asked why you take the position you do.

steve1988
06-01-2012, 03:31
I didn't ask when you believed it becomes a person though, I asked why you take the position you do.

I will elaborate then. A zygote is genetically different from either parent. This uniqueness makes the zygote an individual, and to me, not just a part of either parents' bodies or just spare genetic material. Did that sum it up for you?

Foxtrotx1
06-01-2012, 03:32
To me, as a biologist, life does not begin until the fetus can pump it's own blood. Till then it's on life support.

Blood doesn't start pumping till day 22.

Hell we can't even find a brain wave till 6 weeks. How can it be alive, have feelings, thoughts or dreams if it doesn't think?

steve1988
06-01-2012, 03:36
To me, as a biologist, life does not begin until the fetus can pump it's own blood. Till then it's on life support.

Blood doesn't start pumping till day 22.

Hell we can't even find a brain wave till 6 weeks. How can it be alive, have feelings, thoughts or dreams if it doesn't think?

What support? :tongueout:

Foxtrotx1
06-01-2012, 03:43
What support? :tongueout:

hahahaha oh man. Should have caught that. You get my drift. I was applying a term outside it's applicable use.

steve1988
06-01-2012, 03:47
hahahaha oh man. Should have caught that. You get my drift. I was applying a term outside it's applicable use.

I got what you were trying to say, but I couldn't resist.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 04:08
I will elaborate then. A zygote is genetically different from either parent. This uniqueness makes the zygote an individual, and to me, not just a part of either parents' bodies or just spare genetic material. Did that sum it up for you?The insertion or creation of genetic material different than the original organism is all that is required for you to define something as new life?

steve1988
06-01-2012, 04:10
To me, as a biologist, life does not begin until the fetus can pump it's own blood. Till then it's on life support.

Blood doesn't start pumping till day 22.

Hell we can't even find a brain wave till 6 weeks. How can it be alive, have feelings, thoughts or dreams if it doesn't think?

Now to actually address your point:
Is the ability to pump one's blood or have thoughts the distinguishing factor later in life?

For example, if someone experiences complete cardiac arrest, aren't we obligated to attempt to save them through CPR, etc? They probably aren't having many feelings, thoughts, or dreams at this point, but I would hesitate to declare them dead unless all means to save them had been exhausted.

What about someone who requires life support temporarily, but has a decent chance of recovery in, say, nine months or so? Do we let them die, rather than go through the effort of saving them?

steve1988
06-01-2012, 04:11
The insertion or creation of genetic material different than the original organism is all that is required for you to define something as new life?

In a word, yes.

steve1988
06-01-2012, 04:13
The insertion or creation of genetic material different than the original organism is all that is required for you to define something as new life?

However, I would like to point out that my opposition to the destruction of life for convenience/comfort's sake applies only to human life.

Foxtrotx1
06-01-2012, 04:21
Now to actually address your point:
Is the ability to pump one's blood or have thoughts the distinguishing factor later in life?

For example, if someone experiences complete cardiac arrest, aren't we obligated to attempt to save them through CPR, etc? They probably aren't having many feelings, thoughts, or dreams at this point, but I would hesitate to declare them dead unless all means to save them had been exhausted.

What about someone who requires life support temporarily, but has a decent chance of recovery in, say, nine months or so? Do we let them die, rather than go through the effort of saving them?

I would argue it's entirely different because they were already alive at one time. Something that is alive, dies comeback to life is different than something that isn't alive and never makes it to life IMO.

steve1988
06-01-2012, 04:24
I would argue it's entirely different because they were already alive at one time. Something that is alive, dies comeback to life is different than something that isn't alive and never makes it to life IMO.

And so it comes down to the point I have made ad nauseum. Neither of us will be able to find flaws in our logic, just disagree on the viewpoints that logic comes from.

Blast
06-01-2012, 04:27
In a word, yes.
I agree. A new genetic code has begun, individual and unique from the parent source... though with some similar genetic traits.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 04:39
However, I would like to point out that my opposition to the destruction of life for convenience/comfort's sake applies only to human life.Which do you find this instance to be? Convenience or comfort?

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 04:41
In a word, yes.

I agree. A new genetic code has begun, individual and unique from the parent source... though with some similar genetic traits.In that case shouldn't a mother who takes actions which might be detrimental to a zygote be charged with a crime?

steve1988
06-01-2012, 04:53
In that case shouldn't a mother who takes actions which might be detrimental to a zygote be charged with a crime?

Yes.

Which do you find this instance to be? Convenience or comfort?

In this instance, I believe it is more comfort. I believe that rape is one of the worst crimes that man commits, and I can understand the potential mother not wanting to go through the pain of labor, the general discomfort of pregnancy, and the constant physical reminder of her rape. I never meant to diminish the suffering that woman has gone through. I can't begin to imagine it.

That being said, the "comfort" of the potential mother is less important than the life of a child, no matter the method of conception. Forcing a woman to face a moral decision such as this is one of the reasons that I believe rape to be such a terrible crime.

ETA: The reason I brought up convenience is that I was speaking generally. I don't believe it really applies in this specific situation.

steve1988
06-01-2012, 05:21
Well, the night is young (in Korea) and the beers are calling. Glad we could keep things civil. I think it is important to critically examine our beliefs from time to time, and I definitely got that. Good night.:wavey:

pipedreams
06-01-2012, 05:25
Nothing would stop her from picking up at a local pharmacy. She doesn't need the Doc to give it to her. She could always get it from another Doc. No need to force this doc from providing if he/she is opposed to it.
:agree: ...................

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 05:33
Yes. This would mean fertile women engaging in sexual intercourse could never do anything, ever. No bike rides, no running, certainly never any alcohol. No going outside and chancing infection.
In this instance, I believe it is more comfort. I believe that rape is one of the worst crimes that man commits, and I can understand the potential mother not wanting to go through the pain of labor, the general discomfort of pregnancy, and the constant physical reminder of her rape. I never meant to diminish the suffering that woman has gone through. I can't begin to imagine it. Yet you can characterize it as discomfort.
That being said, the "comfort" of the potential mother is less important than the life of a child, no matter the method of conception. A potential life, even before it has begun in all but the loosest sense is more important than an actual life? How do you balance those scales exactly?
Forcing a woman to face a moral decision such as this is one of the reasons that I believe rape to be such a terrible crime. Thus you feel compelled to make the decision for her?
ETA: The reason I brought up convenience is that I was speaking generally. I don't believe it really applies in this specific situation.Are you equally agreeable to society making decisions about what you can do with your body, given the same criteria?

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 06:05
Nothing would stop her from picking up at a local pharmacy. Unless the local pharmacist also refuses to dispense them.
She doesn't need the Doc to give it to her. She could always get it from another Doc. No need to force this doc from providing if he/she is opposed to it.Unless this is the only doctor on duty at that time.

hogfish
06-01-2012, 17:06
Why? Why, because of the nurse's religious beliefs of course.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/31/492878/rape-victim-refused-emergency-contraception-in-oklahoma/

I'm really seriously considering voting for Obama.

Edit: It wasn't a nurse, it was the examining doctor. I guess I missed that part of their oath where they say "Do no harm, except where my religious beliefs mandate.

Oh, come on! How is he harming her? Pregnancy isn't a disease! Emergency contraception should have been available to her, but forcing him to provide/prescribe it shouldn't happen. Maybe from a pharmacy with proof of adulthood? :dunno:

Roering
06-01-2012, 17:24
Why? Why, because of the nurse's religious beliefs of course.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/31/492878/rape-victim-refused-emergency-contraception-in-oklahoma/

I'm really seriously considering voting for Obama.

Edit: It wasn't a nurse, it was the examining doctor. I guess I missed that part of their oath where they say "Do no harm, except where my religious beliefs mandate.

If the doctor equates abortion to murder then giving her the pill would constitute "doing harm" wouldn't it?

Kingarthurhk
06-01-2012, 17:38
So, why on earth is a woman who is trying to insure a pregnancy doesn't take place after being violated being personified like this?

http://images.inmagine.com/img/rubberball/rbv015/rbv0150056.jpg

No one has any prima facie knowledge a pregnancy has taken place, and why should she be forced to carry to idiot's child against her will?

AlexHassin
06-01-2012, 17:44
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>

ok so the doc has some weird mombo jumbo about when lifebegins<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

the real question is, why did she not give/get her anotherdoctor? Her moral beliefs obviously where getting in the way of him giving duecare. Yet she did nothing from what we see to get a doctor that could givecare. Imho that is the real crime hear, and the real rezone this doctor needsto go under review. <o:p></o:p>

Tilley
06-01-2012, 17:45
So, why on earth is a woman who is trying to insure a pregnancy doesn't take place after being violated being personified like this?

http://images.inmagine.com/img/rubberball/rbv015/rbv0150056.jpg

Naughty girl! Naughty Girl!



Kingarthurhk, you are such a pervert...:tongueout:

Tilley
06-01-2012, 17:58
Nothing would stop her from picking up at a local pharmacy. She doesn't need the Doc to give it to her. She could always get it from another Doc. No need to force this doc from providing if he/she is opposed to it.

Unless she's a democrat and expects us to pay for her condoms AND her abortions. If Obama can force the Catholic Church to pay of condoms and abortion pills, what chance does your local physician stand?

It's Gunhaver's fault for all of this...he's going to vote for Obama!

Gunhaver
06-01-2012, 18:57
I would argue it's entirely different because they were already alive at one time. Something that is alive, dies comeback to life is different than something that isn't alive and never makes it to life IMO.

Not to mention they have friends and family that care about them and a whole lot of unfinished business. A person that's been around for years is quite different from a clump of cells that's completely dependent on someone else for life support.

Gunhaver
06-01-2012, 18:58
Unless she's a democrat and expects us to pay for her condoms AND her abortions. If Obama can force the Catholic Church to pay of condoms and abortion pills, what chance does your local physician stand?

It's Gunhaver's fault for all of this...he's going to vote for Obama!

Actually, if you know anything about how government works you can blame the electoral college.

Gunhaver
06-01-2012, 19:04
Oh, come on! How is he harming her? Pregnancy isn't a disease! Emergency contraception should have been available to her, but forcing him to provide/prescribe it shouldn't happen. Maybe from a pharmacy with proof of adulthood? :dunno:

Pregnancy from a rapist certainly is a disease. Or would you be fine with being held down and forcibly injected with some foreign organism that was going to grow inside you for months until it eventually forced it's way out?

Tilley
06-01-2012, 19:58
Pregnancy from a rapist certainly is a disease. Or would you be fine with being held down and forcibly injected with some foreign organism that was going to grow inside you for months until it eventually forced it's way out?

Wrong missy...it is a human being. It's not the child's fault how it was made. You want to blow away the rapist, have at it, but the child is innocent.

Tilley
06-01-2012, 20:08
...a clump of cells that's completely dependent on someone else for life support.

You call yourself a Christian yet you defile God's greatest creation by calling it, "...a clump of cell's."

The problem with you is that you see things from the viewpoint of a sinful and fallen humanity. The Lord Jesus would not see this child as a disease.

You can't embrace this world and be right with God. Murdering a child is wrong, but thankfully we have a merciful God.

Foxtrotx1
06-02-2012, 05:16
Ill add, to continue the debate, why do men think they get to decide what a woman can and cannot do with her body? Do you let women tell you what you can and cannot do with your testes? Last Time i checked they contained enough genetic material to make billions of Gods greatest creation.

Foxtrotx1
06-02-2012, 05:29
You call yourself a Christian yet you defile God's greatest creation by calling it, "...a clump of cell's."

The problem with you is that you see things from the viewpoint of a sinful and fallen humanity. The Lord Jesus would not see this child as a disease.

You can't embrace this world and be right with God. Murdering a child is wrong, but thankfully we have a merciful God.

Not all christians believe the same thing. Who are you to believe you are more correct of a christian? is your faith more right? how so?

Also, back to my belief as a biologist that pumping blood is the beginning of life, i'd like to drop Deuteronomy 12:23 But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.

Lone Wolf8634
06-02-2012, 06:54
All other arguments aside, I find it hard to digest the fact that some folks are heartless enough to force some poor women, who is a recent victim of what could arguably be one of the worst crimes a man could commit against her, to carry the spawn of that animal within her body.

On the basis of your own "morals".

MedicOni
06-02-2012, 06:58
Are you freaking crazy!!! Step away from the ballot box...

Okay...let's reason together. Let's say you are an ER doctor, and I am a victim of a gunshot about to die. I look up at your kind face and say, "Please kind sir, I am about to die. Please say a prayer for me to Jesus right now so I can go to Heaven."


What do you do?

Easy, I don't. I've been in that situation. All I can tell them is that I'm trying to do everythign I can to make sure you don't meet him today. Besides if I have a GSW patient I'm usually a bit busy, and if they're that bad I'm putting a tube down their throat anyway

G26S239
06-02-2012, 07:06
Why? Why, because of the nurse's religious beliefs of course.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/31/492878/rape-victim-refused-emergency-contraception-in-oklahoma/

I'm really seriously considering voting for Obama.



After perusing through Think Progress I suspect that you already have voted for BO.

Paul7
06-02-2012, 07:41
Not to mention they have friends and family that care about them and a whole lot of unfinished business. A person that's been around for years is quite different from a clump of cells that's completely dependent on someone else for life support.

A newborn infant, or very elderly person, is also dependent on someone else for life support.

Cavalry Doc
06-02-2012, 10:04
BS. If you can't do your job because your religion prohibits you from performing every function that job may require then find a new job if you're so devout.

You can get aspirin over the counter. If you go to the ER with a condition that requires aspirin AND GETS WORSE THE LONGER YOU GO WITHOUT IT and the doc says, "Sorry, against my religion!" that's screwed up.

Patients and providers have rights. I personally think life begins at fertilization. For me that is a simple biological observation. 20% of recognized Pregnancies end in miscarriage. So fertilization does not guarantee a live birth. I do think there is something inherently wrong with ripping a baby from the womb. I have no problems with birth control. I have never performed an abortion, but have been in the room for one. I've seen people ripped apart by just about everything you can imagine, and for me, that was an ugly procedure. I have never referred someone for an elective abortion. I have done emergency consults for ectopic pregnancy, but that is not an elective procedure. It's one of the few times where the life of the mother is a legitimate consideration. For women wanting an elective abortion, I would give them a number to OB/GYN, and they could go there to arrange for the procedure.

In the ER, for sexual assaults, I would always encourage and if she was willing, prescribe "plan B" medication, even before meds that were only for that existed. Before the current crop of plan b alternatives, we would use normal birth control pills dosed in a specific way.

I support the rights of providers to not participate in abortive treatments, however, if they are going to do that, especially in a case like that, they should be referred to another provider that is willing. The provider has a right under the constitution to refuse to participate in a procedure if it is contrary to his beliefs, but also has a responsibility to his patient to get her to where she needs to go to allow her to get the care she wants.

My facility has a policy of NEVER forcing a provider to participate in abortive treatments, with no hard feelings, but it is mandatory that the patient be sent to another provider that day.

Everyone is happy then.

Woofie
06-02-2012, 12:11
If the doctor equates abortion to murder then giving her the pill would constitute "doing harm" wouldn't it?

No. The sperm does not reach the egg instantaneously. It can take several hours. Still contraception.

Kingarthurhk
06-02-2012, 12:42
Ill add, to continue the debate, why do men think they get to decide what a woman can and cannot do with her body? Do you let women tell you what you can and cannot do with your testes? Last Time i checked they contained enough genetic material to make billions of Gods greatest creation.

When you're married, it happens more often than you think.

Cavalry Doc
06-02-2012, 14:03
No. The sperm does not reach the egg instantaneously. It can take several hours. Still contraception.

You'd be surprised how many rape victims don't report the crime until the next day. Even more often thanks to the date rape drugs. Young women wake up the next morning in a strange place, or even in their own bed with no memory of the previous evening.

Any way, The doc has a right to refuse, and a responsibility to make sure the patient gets to another provider that won't refuse.



I have a special place in my heart for men that use drugs to take advantage of women, and if it were legal, I'd have a special place at the ranch for them too, involving six 3 foot barbed stakes, about 20 feet of 550 cord, and a jar of peanut butter. But that's another topic.

Cavalry Doc
06-02-2012, 14:04
When you're married, it happens more often than you think.

ZING!!

Truth spoken.

Foxtrotx1
06-02-2012, 16:09
No. The sperm does not reach the egg instantaneously. It can take several hours. Still contraception.

sperm can live in the ****** for up to a week.

Wow really GT? ****** is censored? Fine.

Sperm can live in the snatch for up to a week.

Gunhaver
06-02-2012, 16:49
Wrong missy...it is a human being. It's not the child's fault how it was made. You want to blow away the rapist, have at it, but the child is innocent.

Wrong missy. It's a clump of cells that would grow into a human being if the one that had to do the growing wants to allow it. A uterus isn't some sort of tag base for sperm where they're safe however they get there.

Gunhaver
06-02-2012, 16:51
You call yourself a Christian yet you defile God's greatest creation by calling it, "...a clump of cell's."

The problem with you is that you see things from the viewpoint of a sinful and fallen humanity. The Lord Jesus would not see this child as a disease.

You can't embrace this world and be right with God. Murdering a child is wrong, but thankfully we have a merciful God.

I don't call myself a Christian. Where the hell did you come up with that??? :dunno:

Gunhaver
06-02-2012, 16:58
sperm can live in the ****** for up to a week.

Wow really GT? ****** is censored? Fine.

Sperm can live in the snatch for up to a week.

Oh, that's the funniest thing I've seen here in years!

Yes. Medical terms for body parts are censored here. Go figure. :dunno:

janice6
06-02-2012, 17:24
This is a non-issue.

The first Dr. should have just given her to another Dr.

No problem.

Tilley
06-02-2012, 20:03
sperm can live in the ****** for up to a week.

Wow really GT? ****** is censored? Fine.

Sperm can live in the snatch for up to a week.

You and Gunhaver should date...You two would make a Really cute couple. :steamed::steamed:

Tilley
06-02-2012, 20:05
Oh, that's the funniest thing I've seen here in years!

Yes. Medical terms for body parts are censored here. Go figure. :dunno:

I believe the correct medical term would be uterus. Duh...

id1otbox
06-02-2012, 20:23
Pretty cruel move to do that to someone who is in an unstable emotional state after going through such a terrible experience.

The semen most likely hadn't even made it to the egg yet to attempt fertilization. Is it murder to stop something that has not happened? I guess some here would believe that when I pull out I am committing murder.

Gunhaver
06-02-2012, 21:11
A newborn infant, or very elderly person, is also dependent on someone else for life support.

And nobody is forced to provide that support if they don't want to.

Gunhaver
06-02-2012, 21:39
Patients and providers have rights. I personally think life begins at fertilization. For me that is a simple biological observation. 20% of recognized Pregnancies end in miscarriage. So fertilization does not guarantee a live birth. I do think there is something inherently wrong with ripping a baby from the womb. I have no problems with birth control. I have never performed an abortion, but have been in the room for one. I've seen people ripped apart by just about everything you can imagine, and for me, that was an ugly procedure. I have never referred someone for an elective abortion. I have done emergency consults for ectopic pregnancy, but that is not an elective procedure. It's one of the few times where the life of the mother is a legitimate consideration. For women wanting an elective abortion, I would give them a number to OB/GYN, and they could go there to arrange for the procedure.

In the ER, for sexual assaults, I would always encourage and if she was willing, prescribe "plan B" medication, even before meds that were only for that existed. Before the current crop of plan b alternatives, we would use normal birth control pills dosed in a specific way.

I support the rights of providers to not participate in abortive treatments, however, if they are going to do that, especially in a case like that, they should be referred to another provider that is willing. The provider has a right under the constitution to refuse to participate in a procedure if it is contrary to his beliefs, but also has a responsibility to his patient to get her to where she needs to go to allow her to get the care she wants.

My facility has a policy of NEVER forcing a provider to participate in abortive treatments, with no hard feelings, but it is mandatory that the patient be sent to another provider that day.

Everyone is happy then.

There are plenty of fields where a physician with religious issues can go where they won't be faced with these problems. Nobody is going to need emergency contraceptive from a neurologist or optometrist or any number of other fields. The doctor placed her religion before the patient's best interests, an activist doctor if you will. There should be no need to have to wait or be transferred to another facility to get the proper care ("proper care" being what the patient wishes since we make our own medical choices) and if your presence as a health care provider causes these issues then you should remove yourself from the equation.

Gunhaver
06-02-2012, 22:19
Nothing would stop her from picking up at a local pharmacy. She doesn't need the Doc to give it to her. She could always get it from another Doc. No need to force this doc from providing if he/she is opposed to it.

Except the fact that she was just raped and shouldn't be expected to have the presence of mind to stop at the local pharmacy on the off chance that the ER doctor was a religious zealot. Especially when pharmacists have been known to deny it to people on those grounds and this is the first case I've heard of a doctor doing it.

Cavalry Doc
06-02-2012, 22:49
There are plenty of fields where a physician with religious issues can go where they won't be faced with these problems. Nobody is going to need emergency contraceptive from a neurologist or optometrist or any number of other fields. The doctor placed her religion before the patient's best interests, an activist doctor if you will. There should be no need to have to wait or be transferred to another facility to get the proper care ("proper care" being what the patient wishes since we make our own medical choices) and if your presence as a health care provider causes these issues then you should remove yourself from the equation.

Actually, there are just about no fields of medicine I can think of where ethical quandries don't arise. He could work in a field where he would be less likely to run into that particular problem to make you feel better, but I doubt he cares about what you feel. Nothing personal, he probably has not read this thread. There are end of life issues, issues with patients being noncompliant or refusing care for themselves or family members, family wanting to prolong life too long, confidentiality issues etc etc etc. There is a reason most facilities have an ethics commitee, to help work through issues that come up.

A simple hand off to another provider would have done the trick.


Proper care is often not what the patient initially wants.

Animal Mother
06-02-2012, 23:10
Actually, there are just about no fields of medicine I can think of where ethical quandries don't arise. He could work in a field where he would be less likely to run into that particular problem to make you feel better, but I doubt he cares about what you feel. Nothing personal, he probably has not read this thread. There are end of life issues, issues with patients being noncompliant or refusing care for themselves or family members, family wanting to prolong life too long, confidentiality issues etc etc etc. There is a reason most facilities have an ethics commitee, to help work through issues that come up. First, the doctor was a woman. Your opinions about specific topics would carry more weight if you demonstrated having actually read the available information.
A simple hand off to another provider would have done the trick. Which raises the question of why that wasn't done from the outset, if the victim explained her situation on arriving at the ER. Unless the doctor involved was the only one available, in which case her personal beliefs should be secondary to the patient's needs.
Proper care is often not what the patient initially wants.If a rape victim wants emergency contraceptives, how is that not proper care medically?

Foxtrotx1
06-03-2012, 03:21
I believe the correct medical term would be uterus. Duh...

Sperm don't just hang out in the uterus. Duh....

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 06:25
First, the doctor was a woman. Your opinions about specific topics would carry more weight if you demonstrated having actually read the available information.
Which raises the question of why that wasn't done from the outset, if the victim explained her situation on arriving at the ER. Unless the doctor involved was the only one available, in which case her personal beliefs should be secondary to the patient's needs.
If a rape victim wants emergency contraceptives, how is that not proper care medically?

When you work in the field, sometime you can get the gist of the gripe from the gripe alone. However, after reading it, there is one glaring omission. Did they refer her to the other hospital. Since they did not allegedly have appropriate nursung staff to do the rape kit, did they send her to another hospital, which would be ok, or just tell her we can't help you, and you're on your own.

When treating a woman that has been sexually assaulted, if I was treating her, It would have been offered, she would not have to ask. But if you ever get scheduled for a hemorrhoidectomy, PM me first and I'll talk you out of it, even if you think you want it. There are often times when patients don't really want what they think they want.

hogfish
06-03-2012, 08:30
Off topic (I think), but the thought just occured to me that a Jew, Muslim, or Rastafarian wouldn't be good choices for servers on a chow line. :supergrin:

dbcooper
06-03-2012, 09:05
Wrong missy...it is a human being. It's not the child's fault how it was made. You want to blow away the rapist, have at it, but the child is innocent.


Suppose the rape victim was 10, an innocent child as well forced to carry the other one.

Sure life begins at conception, the cells were alive before that.. It becomes a person when it's capable of independent thought, til then it's just a shell.

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 09:08
Off topic (I think), but the thought just occured to me that a Jew, Muslim, or Rastafarian wouldn't be good choices for servers on a chow line. :supergrin:

Especially at the breakfast buffet line. Try to get away with not giving me my bacon, I dare you. :steamed:

Tilley
06-03-2012, 20:46
It becomes a person when it's capable of independent thought, til then it's just a shell.

WINNER OF TILLEY'S QUOTE OF THE DAY AWARD!!!

...of course you have just offended every atheist on "Religious Issues." :rofl:

Gunhaver
06-04-2012, 03:04
There are often times when patients don't really want what they think they want.

Yeah, that was her problem. She just didn't realize that she wanted to carry a rapist's baby. Just needed to think it over, weigh the pros and cons. :upeyes:

Or maybe every single woman, upon finding out that emergency contraception was an option, has already made up her mind about what they would do if that if that happened to them because it's such a royally f---ed up yet very common situation to wind up in. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them have called their local hospitals and asked if there's any doctors working there that might stick them in this kind of situation.

Gunhaver
06-04-2012, 03:08
WINNER OF TILLEY'S QUOTE OF THE DAY AWARD!!!

...of course you have just offended every atheist on "Religious Issues." :rofl:

Atheists aren't capable of independent thought? Funny, I'd say that's the very thing that defines us. Of course Doc would disagree but he's already going on about it in two threads so I better not get him started.

Roering
06-04-2012, 11:46
No. The sperm does not reach the egg instantaneously. It can take several hours. Still contraception.

1. "Can" but doesn't always take that long.

3. Not relevant as the action is dependent upon what the doctor thinks is harm. Not what you think is harm.

Schabesbert
06-04-2012, 12:53
Sure life begins at conception, the cells were alive before that.. It becomes a person when it's capable of independent thought, til then it's just a shell.
Interesting concept ... how do you define "independent thought?"

Cavalry Doc
06-04-2012, 14:38
Yeah, that was her problem. She just didn't realize that she wanted to carry a rapist's baby. Just needed to think it over, weigh the pros and cons. :upeyes:

Or maybe every single woman, upon finding out that emergency contraception was an option, has already made up her mind about what they would do if that if that happened to them because it's such a royally f---ed up yet very common situation to wind up in. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them have called their local hospitals and asked if there's any doctors working there that might stick them in this kind of situation.

I think you missed the point I was making, that was in response to what I considered an absolute statement made by you.


("proper care" being what the patient wishes since we make our own medical choices)


I've already stated that the physician had a responsibility to refer her to another provider. I'd have prescribed emergency contraception. But that is not without risk, and in any treatment a patient requests, the risks and benefits need to be discussed. It's pretty safe, but not 100% effective. What to do then would also need to be discussed.

GAFinch
06-04-2012, 19:55
Yes, rape is often used as justification for the legalization of abortion and abortifacient drugs. The problem is that rape and incest combined make up only 1% of the 1.3 million abortions per year, and that doesn't even include morning after pills. If abortions and abortifacients were limited to rape/incest, then we'd suddenly see a 100 fold increase in supposed rape cases.

Foxtrotx1
06-05-2012, 17:12
So is anyone going to challenge the passage in the old testament decreeing life to start with blood? Or are the devout religious types selectively ignoring that?

AlexHassin
06-05-2012, 19:25
So is anyone going to challenge the passage in the old testament decreeing life to start with blood? Or are the devout religious types selectively ignoring that?
not doughting you but where was that, if you dont mind?

Cavalry Doc
06-06-2012, 05:03
Yes, rape is often used as justification for the legalization of abortion and abortifacient drugs. The problem is that rape and incest combined make up only 1% of the 1.3 million abortions per year, and that doesn't even include morning after pills. If abortions and abortifacients were limited to rape/incest, then we'd suddenly see a 100 fold increase in supposed rape cases.

Life of the mother is an often overused excuse. That probably accounts for less than 2%. Ectopic pregnancy's, eclampsia, hemorrhage, infection, life threatening pre-existing condition of the mother..... this early in the morning, that's all I come up with. Those are pretty rare compared to the number of pregnancy's, and the number of abortions.

dbcooper
06-06-2012, 06:29
Interesting concept ... how do you define "independent thought?"


Frontal lobe activity. So if there isn't a frontal lobe yet tis but a blob

dbcooper
06-06-2012, 06:34
WINNER OF TILLEY'S QUOTE OF THE DAY AWARD!!!

...of course you have just offended every atheist on "Religious Issues." :rofl:

As long as I offend someone.

What about the first part of my post, the "Mother" is 10, the proud papa is her Dad, or Uncle, or Priest(I know they prefer boys but it's possible), how is God served by forcing her to carry to term?

Foxtrotx1
06-06-2012, 06:35
not doughting you but where was that, if you dont mind?

One page back, :wavey:

Tilley
06-06-2012, 20:36
As long as I offend someone.

What about the first part of my post, the "Mother" is 10, the proud papa is her Dad, or Uncle, or Priest(I know they prefer boys but it's possible), how is God served by forcing her to carry to term?You answered your own question. How is God served by killing an innocent child? Two wrongs make a right? Instead of making the child out to be an abomination, look to the sperm donor and the responsible parent. The 10 year old is a victim, so do we make the unborn child one too?

We have a responsibility to protect the rights of human life. Especially those who cannot protect themselves.