Rape victim denied morning after pill

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

anitram

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Mar 13, 2001
Messages
18,918
Location
NY
Story found here.

A Good Samaritan Hospital emergency room doctor refused to give a rape victim a morning-after pill because he said it was against his Mennonite religion.

Rebuffed by the doctor, the woman called her gynecologist, who wrote the prescription. Her local pharmacy told her it was out of the drug and referred her to a sister store in Reading.

The hospital may be religiously affiliated but it also receives federal funding. Furthermore, do we expect rape victims (or their loved ones), who according to their father are:

The woman who reported the rape was emotionally unable to speak to a reporter

to logically and rationally ascertain that the hospital's doctors might have religious persuasions and therefore they should make the drive to another county, another state, wherever? Is that what we have come to?

And check out this example of compassion in action:

The former medical director of the hospital said he sees nothing strange about asking a woman from eastern Lebanon County to drive to Reading for a drug.

"People drive to Reading to buy jeans. Even if that were the case, that you had to drive to Reading to get this [prescription], to me that does not rise to a compulsion that you have to pass laws that [doctors] have to do something," Dr. Joe Kearns said.
 
Please read the August edition of Jane magazine for an interesting article on South Dakota morals...its titled "THIS COULD BE YOUR STATE - The scary things happening to women's rights in South Dakota are heading your way..."

Doctors no longer prescribing BC products, pharmacists refusing to refill BC orders, no MORNING after pills given...its eyeopening....
 
Last edited:
For that doctor to force his beliefs on the woman, it was almost like he was reducing her to second class status, since he did not consider her rights nor give any compassion to her.


originally posted by Mr BAW
Please read the August edition of Jane magazine for an interesting article on South Dakota morals...its titled "THIS COULD BE YOUR STATE - The scary things happening to women's rights in South Dakota are heading your way..."

Doctors no longe rprescribing BC products, pharmacists refusing to refill BC orders, no MORNING after pills given...its eyeopening....


What is this? Are they banning birth control as part of a secret government plan to make women have more babies?
 
Thankfully, there is a fight being put up in South Dakota.

Opponents are gathering signatures for a ballot initiative to overturn the law. Republican legislators who voted for South Dakota's ban are attracting both Democratic and Republican campaign challengers. And Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, who signed the bill on March 6, has seen his support drop 20 percent, according to state polls.

If the ballot initiative fails and the law takes effect, the tribal president of the Oglala Sioux Indian Nation in South Dakota--territory that would be immune to the state law--already has vowed to build an abortion clinic on the reservation for all women in the state.
 
Pearl said:
For that doctor to force his beliefs on the woman, it was almost like he was reducing her to second class status, since he did not consider her rights nor give any compassion to her.



the right of someone to discriminate under the guise of religion shall not be impeded.
 
Pearl said:
For that doctor to force his beliefs on the woman, it was almost like he was reducing her to second class status, since he did not consider her rights nor give any compassion to her.

Perhaps this is an argument for not allowing religiously based hospitals or doctors of certain faiths or a requirement that to be licensed, the exercise of religion must not interfere with the practice of medicine.

If the discussion is framed in terms of "forcing" one set of beliefs on another, the implication here, right or wrong, is that the doctor must not follow his/her religious beliefs (which is akin to saying that other beliefs should be forced upon the doctor).
 
Nobody goes to medical school without a priori knowledge of the scope of the profession.

He could have chosen to practice dermatology, instead he opted for emergency medicine, and it should be obvious to anyone with a functional brain cell that emergency medicine encompasses treating rape victims or people seeking contraceptives.

Too bad for him.

Do no harm. Did he not cause emotional harm and distress to his patient? His patient was not some hypothetical fertilized egg, it was the living, breathing woman in front of him.
 
anitram said:

Do no harm. Did he not cause emotional harm and distress to his patient? His patient was not some hypothetical fertilized egg, it was the living, breathing woman in front of him.

Very well said.

I'm truly embarrassed by some of my colleagues "high & mighty" 'tude and lack of knowledge about large-dose hormonal emergency contraception.
 
Wow I thought this pill was standard in a rape kit. Honestly I'm surprised a rape victim has to get their own prescription.

:banghead:
 
If this was the same story I saw on Good Morning America, and I believe it is (same name of hospital)-the woman's mother was told by a nurse over the phone that it was "against the doctor's religious beliefs" and that they have problems like that with doctors. GMA then had a female doctor on who is a member of a pro-life physicians group who kept insisting it was and is a medical judgment (and also described the possible ways the morning after pill can be considered an abortion agent of some sort, apparently that is her medical opinion) and that physicians are not "vending machines". In my opinion when you take an oath as a physician, your first and primary obligation is to the patient. They can claim all they want that it is a medical judgment, but it really is a moral judgment-at the very least a moral combined with a medical if you want to give the benefit of the doubt in individual cases. If you can't handle doing things that are against your religious, moral, political beliefs then you really have no business being a doctor, a pharmacist, etc.

Attitudes towards rape and rape victims are also intertwined and involved in this whole issue. Why should we have to legislate compassionate assistance for rape victims? It is an outrage, and very sad. The implied question is always there lurking , was this woman really raped.
 
nbcrusader said:
[BIf the discussion is framed in terms of "forcing" one set of beliefs on another, the implication here, right or wrong, is that the doctor must not follow his/her religious beliefs (which is akin to saying that other beliefs should be forced upon the doctor). [/B]

:up:
 
No matter where you work, beliefs are forced upon you that are contrary to your own-you make a choice to either conform and do what they want, to rebel (and risk consequences) or you quit. The big differences here are-you are dealing with a woman who is the victim of a crime, you are refusing to help her avoid a possible pregnancy because of your own religious beliefs (or medical if one believes that is the case), and you are violating an oath you took. How can anyone say no harm was done to this woman? As far as I know the oath isn't restricted to physical harm.

What if police refused to help people based upon moral or religious beliefs..fire? ambulance?
 
I think you are appropriately seeking a broader standard where religious belief cannot interfer with the conduct of a job - be it medical, security, emergency response, etc. Not just an exemption for case of rape.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
What if police refused to help people based upon moral or religious beliefs..fire? ambulance?

My thoughts exactly. My fiance's parents just told me how they've fallen in love with Bono and his new analogy about Christians not wanting to help people with AIDS because of the sex factor and how he said "well, if you saw a bad car accident and a man was bleeding from the head, but he smelled like alcohol, would you really just leave him there? duh, NO!"

Same diff, people.
 
Basically I'm talking about..when you are responsible for the life, well being (physical and mental, emotional, and all that, basic humanity of any other human life)-your first obligation in your job is to that person, regardless of any personal beliefs you have. The point I was trying to make is, when do you ever see anyone in any of those other jobs making decisions about patients/the public-to not save their lives, to not assist them, to not put out a fire? Granted her life wasn't literally at stake (theoretically maybe it could have been due to the pregnancy, or maybe she might even consider suicide one day), but put yourself in the place of that woman-any of us, try to put yourself in her shoes. It would be like saying- go somewhere else to put the fire out, drive somewhere and get a bucket of water.

I just for the life of me cannot imagine the coldness and heartlessness of doing that to a rape victim, I just can't. Not to mention the dereliction of professional duty.
 
The fact that another doctor in the article said that it's fine she had to go 40 miles to another county because, after all, people drive 40 miles to buy JEANS tells you a lot about the complete lack of consideration women who are raped continue to get in our society.

I can't for the life of me conceive how he thought that was an appropriate analogy.
 
anitram said:
The fact that another doctor in the article said that it's fine she had to go 40 miles to another county because, after all, people drive 40 miles to buy JEANS tells you a lot about the complete lack of consideration women who are raped continue to get in our society.

I can't for the life of me conceive how he thought that was an appropriate analogy.

Makes me want to hack off his weenie and tell him he can go 40 miles to the next urologist because, after all, people drive 40 miles to buy jeans....
 
anitram said:
The fact that another doctor in the article said that it's fine she had to go 40 miles to another county because, after all, people drive 40 miles to buy JEANS tells you a lot about the complete lack of consideration women who are raped continue to get in our society.

I can't for the life of me conceive how he thought that was an appropriate analogy.

she probably had it commin'

what was she doing when this alleged rape occured?

what was she wearing?

was she out late at night?


had she been drinking?


these are things one should consider,
before taking an innocent life
 
deep said:


she probably had it commin'

what was she doing when this alleged rape occured?

what was she wearing?

was she out late at night?


had she been drinking?


these are things one should consider,
before taking an innocent life


and now the little slut's gonna pay!

oh, the regret she'll feel when she has to wake up in the middle of the night and feed a baby she doesn't want and can't adequately support.

next time, she'll wait until she's properly married.
 
Absolutely pathetic. Just agreeing with the whole 'Do No Harm' argument. An emergency doctor is there to help and SUPPORT and basically tells an emotionally distraught (and physically assulted) woman that if he actually helps her in not getting pregnant by some disgusting asshole rapists baby, she's basically a murderer by askign for help.

And all this bullshit is based on FAITH not FACT. WTF?? Does he not work Sundays cause its his day of rest and when some multiple stab wound victim comes in on a Sunday he says 'sorry you'll have to wait till monday, i don't want to go against my religious beliefs'

Meh.
 
You know what, fuck this 'forcing one set of beliefs on one in favour of another.' Nice to know Drs piss on their Hippocratic Oath. They simply need not take the fucking Oath in the first place.
:mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom