|
Post by jemand on Jun 16, 2010 12:27:10 GMT -5
FWIW, I was travelling in the Southern States in the early 80's when I was told stories by people there about being turned away from hospitals. If things have changed since then, I am glad to hear of it. You know, I can understand the rage some of you feel about a Catholic hospital refusing to do certain procedures. But do we really want the alternative? Freedom of conscience is a very important liberty, not to be given up lightly by individuals or institutions. While I might not agree with the restrictions that Seventh Day Adventists, or vegans or Roman Catholics have in their lives, I respect their right to make those choices, especially when alternatives to those choices exist. Life is messy. There is no magic silver bullet that covers everyone. Freedom means that mistakes can and will be made. But the alternative is far far worse, if you ask me. I understand that. But birth control pills come with specific warnings that they may possibly, in some rare instances, act as an abortificant. Why are the warnings there? Because we live in a pluralistic society! The provider can't assume the consumer shares his or her ethics, and thus provides all the information that the other person needs in order to make an informed choice in their own personal ethic. Even in a very rare instance which may or may not ever even happen. Also, places offering abortions are required to give information about alternatives and resources in order to get those alternatives, i.e., mention adoption, answer questions about adoption procedures to the best of their ability, etc. That is what we *should* pay to live in a pluralistic society! Respect your own values, but acknowledge that other people might have different beliefs, and give them ALL the information possible in order that they may make their own choice. However, that is NOT protected. Only the pro-choice, birth control options are required to respect the beliefs of others. Catholic and other "pro-life" hospitals are NOT required to honestly state the situation, state the pros and cons of all treatment options, list which ones are available there, and where to go if you want something not available there. These kinds of things are *BASIC* respect necessary in a pluralistic society. I am all for religious liberty. But you need to be HONEST to your patients about your own limitations, why you have them, and give your patients an informed choice to go elsewhere if the situation allows and their ethic differs from yours. Our society maintains a double standard that privileges a certain religious system of beliefs and ethics over the alternatives, and that should not stand. We really should *all* be unhappy about this, because it actually IS a freedom of religion, free practice, etc. issue. Freedom should mean that coercion through engineered ignorance is *not* allowed.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 16, 2010 12:35:31 GMT -5
As for the ectopic pregnancy treatment and DE, I think it works fine until you get to the end of the reasoning. Dr Nadal, for instance, takes it one step too far down that road. Arguing that surgically removing the fallopian tube is a permitted emergent treatment but administering medication that would remove the implant without surgery would be a chemical abortion is ridiculous. Both actions have the same immediate result. The only difference is the effect on the mother. Common sense and reason would permit one to choose the emergency treatment that causes the least amount of harm to both patients, mother and child. If the child cannot survive, then the mother's well-being should be given priority. To argue anything else in that specific situation is splitting hairs to such a fine degree that the entire question ceases to have any practical meaning. My old pastor used to call it a case of being 'so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good'. Again, I am absolutely pro-life. But the position they are taking is not a pro-life position. At all. Quoted for truth. Emphasis mine.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 16, 2010 12:46:51 GMT -5
I agree with this. I believe that medical personnel need to be able to act within the conscience of their own beliefs, especially where pro-life issues are concerned simply due to the nature of the issue involved there. I don't think we should require medical personnel to ignore their beliefs in providing elective services that violate those beliefs, for instance. But I part ways where a procedure is not really elective (such as ectopic pregnancy, for instance) or when the conscience refuses to permit a provider to even tell a patient all of their options and where they can go if they choose to do something that the provider cannot him/herself do. If you cannot so much as inform a patient of their full treatment options then perhaps this is not your calling, is all I'm saying. But some would say that a provider who refuses to provide the services him/herself in violation of their conscience should be banned from practice and that I cannot support.
I am troubled by providers hiding information from patients, information that a patient would require to make a fully informed decision. And if a provider is surrounded by other providers who will perform the service then simply deferring to them is the right thing to do, IMO. But if you are the only game in town and the situation is emergent then you are on deck, and you have to do what is right for your patient. A physician who would let a woman die of an ectopic pregnancy because he/she didn't believe in choosing to save the mother's life under any circumstances and where the patient was not informed of their full options or there was no other to perform the procedure is guilty of terrible negligence, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 16, 2010 14:30:04 GMT -5
So here's the rub: if I, in good conscience, believe that abortion is murder, not only should I not be forced to participate in any procedure that would procure abortion, but I would consider myself being an accessory to a murder if I supplied the information of where one could go to get it. In fact, I think it would be fair to call me a hypocrite if I refused to partake in the procedure but had no problem letting someone else do the dirty work. Given the fact that the doctrine of double effect actually grows out of Catholic philosophy, I would think that any ethics committee at a Catholic hospital has already looked at the sort of hard cases that ectopic pregnancies provide and already concluded that not to treat the woman to save her life would be unethical and unChristian. I am not aware of any stories where the contrary has happened, but maybe someone could enlighten me on that if there is.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 16, 2010 15:08:21 GMT -5
That is why I said that if one, due to one's religious beliefs, cannot so much as give the patient the full information they require to make their own moral and ethical choice regarding a matter of medical care then one should perhaps consider another occupation. No one requires such a person to enter the field of medicine, especially OB-Gyn. I do not believe that one should be required to actually perform elective procedures against one's beliefs, but if one cannot even have a conversation on the subject with one's patient then there is reason to think that one has not chosen one's profession wisely. Full informed medical information and consent is required of medical providers. That is a large part of the job description for a medical provider. That's why they have all those forms you have to sign when they do anything. To make sure you know all the facts and are making your own decisions. The moral choice is left to the patient.
If someone asks me where the 7-11 is so they can buy some things which include cigarettes, and I believe that is wrong, I do not think I am morally responsible for their decision to buy them and smoke them. I am not buying them for the person, or advocating their use, and I may even be actively trying to get that person to quit. But simply saying, 'the store is on eighteenth street' does not make me a participant in their smoking habit. Working as a checker in a grocery store which sells cigarettes would require me to hand a pack over to a customer who requests it. That does not make me an accomplice to their habit. It is part of my job description. The choice is theirs to make.
As long as the law permits people to choose to abort (and I refuse to go down into the choice morass here, it is a twisting minefield of angry set opinions that will bog down the rest of the discussion which would be a shame), then for a medical professional, engaged by the patient for the express purpose of managing their health care needs and for which they assume that responsibility voluntarily, to simply point out that this is an option for them although one which they cannot perform or recommend for religious reasons is part of their job description. It is not the moral equivalent of hiring a hitman or driving the get away car.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 16, 2010 16:58:23 GMT -5
Put that way, I have no difficulty with it. I am a certified kinesonics practitioner (a form of alt med that is highly effective and highly unknown) and so I occasionally face these sort of situations in my line of work, particularly as I deal with people at a wholistic level. When asked my opinion on something that I would not in good conscience recommend I strive to give accurate information and also explain why I would personally not take that particular route and I might suggest other alternatives. After that, it is the client's responsibility as to what they do. If you don't know what your options are, you don't have any.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 16, 2010 17:12:29 GMT -5
Now that I think about it, if you don't tell a woman about all her options than any consent you get would be void because it's no longer informed consent.
If you hold yourself guilty if you provide a woman with all her options and she chooses to end a pregnancy I really can't help you, I believe in free will as well as informed consent and I question the concept that it's ethical to force another person to decide as you want them to decide by not providing all the options. I would be screaming mad if I had lost a fallopian tube to a tubal pregnancy because some "christian" had decided that I couldn't have methotrexate because THEY didn't believe in it!!
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 16, 2010 17:26:48 GMT -5
Exactly. When I was studying for my degree in social work I was still very much entrenched in my old cult. (The fact that I, as a woman, was studying something other than nursing or teaching was a huge problem for everyone, btw.) And this sort of situation was pressed upon me, the subject of personal values versus the needs of your patient/client at any given time. I was fortunate to have an excellent professor who helped me come to a place where I could be sure I was honoring my own convictions at the same time as I was meeting the needs of my patient/client.
Interestingly, later on when I left my cult I went through a period where I was struggling with depression and was occasionally suicidal. I went to a counselor with Catholic Social Services to work through some things and during one session I told her, after much agonized self-debate, that I was becoming suicidal. And she stopped me right there, cold. And said she could not discuss suicide with me because she wasn't insured for it. I could talk to her about anything else but if I wanted to discuss feeling suicidal she would have to ask me to leave and see someone else. To say I was stunned would be an understatement. Especially as a trained social worker myself I knew that she was acting inappropriately, but of course I thought all kinds of other awful things too. I remember thinking that I had to be the only person in the country who tearfully admitted wanting to kill myself to a trained professional and was told to be quiet and go away.
I tell this story because in a way I could see the same reaction occurring to someone who had a life-threatening condition and was told, 'Stop! I'd like to save your life but my religious beliefs won't permit me to do so, even though I have the training and skill to do so. I'm gonna have to ask you to leave and go somewhere else.' I guess what I'm saying is that not only do we have to decide what we will and will not do as professionals and still remain professionals, but we also have to be cognizant of how we communicate this to a patient/client and make sure that they are cared for appropriately if we do have to hand over their care to another professional. There should be a proper transfer process that is supportive of the patient/client from point A to point B. People shouldn't just be shown the door disapprovingly and told to move on down the road...
|
|
|
Post by quivery on Jun 16, 2010 22:20:52 GMT -5
What really creeps me out, and makes ME quiver, is that the people who RUN the Quiverfull movement seem to value human life ONLY if it lives in the womb. Once the baby emerges, God can do whatever He pleases with him or her. He can also do whatever He pleases with the mother...
It's a no-win situation. If a Quiverfull child is a boy, he will be expected to grow up and treat women in the way Quiverfull women are usually treated. If the child is a girl, she will be expected to grow up and submit to Quiverfull teachings and treatment because "it's God's will" and/or Word.
Quiverfull boys AND girls will be expected to use the Bible as their only measure of what is right/wrong, ethical/unethical, loving/unloving.
I personally believe that the REAL meaning of the Bible verse that says "take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ" (or something like that) is this. Read it slowly, and absorb it:
When you think a thought, stop IMMEDIATELY and ask yourself if that one thought was one that supports what the Bible teaches. If it is not, repent and ask God for His forgiveness. Over time, you will stop thinking ANY thought that does not support or conform to what the Bible teaches.
You know what Orwell called this? "Crimestop"--stopping "thoughtcrime"...
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 17, 2010 0:08:32 GMT -5
FWIW, I was travelling in the Southern States in the early 80's when I was told stories by people there about being turned away from hospitals. If things have changed since then, I am glad to hear of it. I have never heard of this. The early '80's was quite a long time ago. If it has happened in the past, it probably has to do with poverty and a lack of resources. The South is not a monolith, in any case. The one thing that seems consistent throughout the region, though, is the fact that the South is relatively poor.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 17, 2010 0:26:22 GMT -5
Regarding the conscience laws:
Someone who cannot under any circumstances perform an abortion because of religious beliefs has no business going into OB/GYN.
Someone who cannot under any circumstances issue birth control or Plan B has no business becoming a pharmacist.
If one is morally opposed to performing the most basic functions of the position, one should not go into the field. And yet, we see that this is happening more and more. There are "activist pharmacists" who may now refuse medical prescriptions because of "conscience." And "activist physicians" all over the place as well... I have heard Dominionists exhort their people to go into these fields precisely in order to take advantage of the conscience laws. What's next? Some jackass pharmacist decides to decline the Mucinex D that I need in order to control my allergies because pseudoephedrine is used to make meth? What about my anti-depressants? I noticed that Samaritan Ministries refers to these as "psychotropic drugs." How cute.
Far from being persecuted for "pro-life beliefs," medical practitioners and pharmacists now seem to have legal protection against performing the most basic duties associated with their jobs. The latest expansion of the conscience clauses makes this situation even more dire (and enables the circumstances that jemand describes in which medical practitioners can lie to patients in order to prevent them from "sinning").
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 17, 2010 8:22:18 GMT -5
KM I totally agree!! The promise I made when I became a nurse, was to take care of everyone I was assigned. It wasn't to take care of them because I agreed with them!!!!!!!
Some health plans in the US will pay for 1 OBGYN visit so if you run into one of these sanctimonious twits and he tells you at the end of your visit, that s/he "doesn't believe in birth control" you have a problem and now likely have to pay for the whole thing out of pocket from another provider.
I don't know if we can get conscience clause laws overturned but I think we should try to get a law saying that physicians/providers and pharmacists must clearly state their believes, maybe require them to post "Pink baby feet" at the door and make it illegal for them to pull bait and switch...either give you a year of BC or not charge for your exam, their choice. Pink baby feet posters are not intrusive or nasty, they don't provoke questions from precocious 5 year olds...so no problem for them to be posted in all points of care where radical right to life principals are practiced...
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 17, 2010 8:48:09 GMT -5
Almost as if the Hippocratic Oath had been replaced by the Hypocritic Oath in the medical profession...
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 17, 2010 10:29:02 GMT -5
Hallelujah and Mazal Tov!!!!! Don Veinot (the guy who co-authored the critique of Bill Gothard) just posted a blog entry on Vision Forum's stance on ectopic pregnancy and announced it in his e-newsletter this morning!!!! The link to the Midwest Christian Outreach Post: midwestoutreach.org/blogs/visions-of-vision-forum#more-304I think the quote about the bowel movement via the penis sounds like Karen Campbell. Heh, heh, heh. God bless everybody, but especially Don today. I wrote to him about two weeks ago, and he got back to me pretty quickly but he works full-time at another job (driving a tractor trailer), and it took him awhile to get something together. If anyone out there is as happy as I am, please send a thank you note to MCOI. Yeaheyy!
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 17, 2010 10:29:43 GMT -5
|
|
sarah
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by sarah on Jun 17, 2010 11:16:41 GMT -5
Hospitals have to treat you if you arrive with a true emergency regardless if you have insurance or not. What the hospital considers a "true emergency" might not always be the same as what an ordinary person would think. I have a friend who developed cancer in his sinuses. With no insurance his only option for medical treatment was the emergency room. The only care they could/would give him was when he would develop a nose bleed so bad he was passing out. That was an emergency, so they would stop the bleeding, give him a transfusion and send him on his way. That's it. No treatment whatsoever for the cancer. If my friend hadn't found a hospital which would take him on as a charity case, he would be dead now. As it is, his life expectancy is reduced because the cancer continued to grow all those months when he had no health care besides stopping the nose bleeds. Whenever I hear someone say that we don't need universal health care because people can always get treatment in the emergency room, I wish they could spend a day in my friend's shoes. Slowly dying of a curable disease. Someone who cannot under any circumstances perform an abortion because of religious beliefs has no business going into OB/GYN. Someone who cannot under any circumstances issue birth control or Plan B has no business becoming a pharmacist. Thank you! I have never understood how "I can't be forced to compromise my beliefs" became "I can force you to keep me in a job that I can't do because of my beliefs." If a person's convictions prevent them from performing the duties of their position, then I wish them all the best in a job that is more compatible with their convictions.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 17, 2010 11:56:19 GMT -5
[ Whenever I hear someone say that we don't need universal health care because people can always get treatment in the emergency room, I wish they could spend a day in my friend's shoes. Slowly dying of a curable disease. I'm in Canada and all I can say is that though we do have some waiting for some medical procedures, the universal health care system works very well. I am currently recovering from a surgery to donate a kidney to a dear friend who wouldn't have been able to afford it in the US due to costs. Both of our surgeries and hospital stays were covered by universal medicare. Yes, there is waste in the system, but overall it works fairly well. Someone who cannot under any circumstances perform an abortion because of religious beliefs has no business going into OB/GYN. Someone who cannot under any circumstances issue birth control or Plan B has no business becoming a pharmacist. Unfortunately, you would end up getting rid of a lot of really fine doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, etc., who don't believe that they should participate in procuring abortions and that it runs contrary to their beliefs to do no harm and to preserve and protect life. I used to work as a second attendant for a midwife and a doula. I had to quit because of lack of support from my husband and because the hours were too irregular for everything else I had to do in my life. I often worked with women who had beliefs that ran contrary to mine, but I didn't judge them and I did my best to serve them with compassion and love. I have really good relations with them to this day. Also, accomodation also needs to be made for those people who want to know that their caregiver is pro-life. Fact is, if your caregiver isn't willing to help you with an abortion, there are plenty of other resources out there who will and the information isn't lacking if you really want to find it.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 17, 2010 12:08:50 GMT -5
[ Whenever I hear someone say that we don't need universal health care because people can always get treatment in the emergency room, I wish they could spend a day in my friend's shoes. Slowly dying of a curable disease. I'm in Canada and all I can say is that though we do have some waiting for some medical procedures, the universal health care system works very well. I am currently recovering from a surgery to donate a kidney to a dear friend who wouldn't have been able to afford it in the US due to costs. Both of our surgeries and hospital stays were covered by universal medicare. Yes, there is waste in the system, but overall it works fairly well. Someone who cannot under any circumstances perform an abortion because of religious beliefs has no business going into OB/GYN. Someone who cannot under any circumstances issue birth control or Plan B has no business becoming a pharmacist. Unfortunately, you would end up getting rid of a lot of really fine doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, etc., who don't believe that they should participate in procuring abortions and that it runs contrary to their beliefs to do no harm and to preserve and protect life. I used to work as a second attendant for a midwife and a doula. I had to quit because of lack of support from my husband and because the hours were too irregular for everything else I had to do in my life. I often worked with women who had beliefs that ran contrary to mine, but I didn't judge them and I did my best to serve them with compassion and love. I have really good relations with them to this day. Also, accomodation also needs to be made for those people who want to know that their caregiver is pro-life. Fact is, if your caregiver isn't willing to help you with an abortion, there are plenty of other resources out there who will and the information isn't lacking if you really want to find it. No. You are not reading the words on the page. The point is *under ANY circumstances.* If your patient is going to die barring immediate surgery which will result in the death of a fetus, (ectopic pregnancy disaster or some other similar disaster) and you sit on your hands because of your faith, you do not belong as an OB-GYN. Declining to abort a healthy pregnancy is not the same thing. But saying that a doctor MUST NOT stand by while their patient DIES would not get rid of any health care provider who could remotely be described as a "good" one. There are NO "really fine doctors, nurses, etc" who would behave that way. Unfortunately, there are some not-so-fine ones who would. As for birth control, it is often used to regulate extremely painful menstrual cramps in women who may be celibate! A pharmacist is not a doctor, does not write prescriptions, and by getting a license to practice, should be required to fill all legal prescriptions that a doctor orders under a doctor's care. A pharmacist DOES NOT KNOW that a girl filling a birth control prescription is even sexually active! There is no need to deny care which could greatly improve quality of life, just because you are making assumptions about your customer's lifestyle. Not your business. ESPECIALLY as a pharmacist doesn't really get into that when filling a prescription.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 17, 2010 12:27:31 GMT -5
[ Whenever I hear someone say that we don't need universal health care because people can always get treatment in the emergency room, I wish they could spend a day in my friend's shoes. Slowly dying of a curable disease. I'm in Canada and all I can say is that though we do have some waiting for some medical procedures, the universal health care system works very well. I am currently recovering from a surgery to donate a kidney to a dear friend who wouldn't have been able to afford it in the US due to costs. Both of our surgeries and hospital stays were covered by universal medicare. Yes, there is waste in the system, but overall it works fairly well. Someone who cannot under any circumstances perform an abortion because of religious beliefs has no business going into OB/GYN. Someone who cannot under any circumstances issue birth control or Plan B has no business becoming a pharmacist. Unfortunately, you would end up getting rid of a lot of really fine doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, etc., who don't believe that they should participate in procuring abortions and that it runs contrary to their beliefs to do no harm and to preserve and protect life. I used to work as a second attendant for a midwife and a doula. I had to quit because of lack of support from my husband and because the hours were too irregular for everything else I had to do in my life. I often worked with women who had beliefs that ran contrary to mine, but I didn't judge them and I did my best to serve them with compassion and love. I have really good relations with them to this day. Also, accomodation also needs to be made for those people who want to know that their caregiver is pro-life. Fact is, if your caregiver isn't willing to help you with an abortion, there are plenty of other resources out there who will and the information isn't lacking if you really want to find it. No. You are not reading the words on the page. The point is *under ANY circumstances.* If your patient is going to die barring immediate surgery which will result in the death of a fetus, (ectopic pregnancy disaster or some other similar disaster) and you sit on your hands because of your faith, you do not belong as an OB-GYN. Declining to abort a healthy pregnancy is not the same thing. But saying that a doctor MUST NOT stand by while their patient DIES would not get rid of any health care provider who could remotely be described as a "good" one. There are NO "really fine doctors, nurses, etc" who would behave that way. Unfortunately, there are some not-so-fine ones who would. As for birth control, it is often used to regulate extremely painful menstrual cramps in women who may be celibate! A pharmacist is not a doctor, does not write prescriptions, and by getting a license to practice, should be required to fill all legal prescriptions that a doctor orders under a doctor's care. A pharmacist DOES NOT KNOW that a girl filling a birth control prescription is even sexually active! There is no need to deny care which could greatly improve quality of life, just because you are making assumptions about your customer's lifestyle. Not your business. ESPECIALLY as a pharmacist doesn't really get into that when filling a prescription. This, exactly. Also, cherylannhannah, I am not sure you understand how these conscience clauses operate in the United States. jemand is not at all overstating the case. By the way, I started birth control at the age of 13 for these kinds of painful, frequent periods. I was several years from becoming sexually active at that point. Also? My only serious relationships have been with women, for whatever that's worth. I do not now--and haven't ever--depended on birth control for the function of contraception. Not that this is any of the pharmacist's business, but I probably wasn't ever going to get pregnant through consensual heterosexual sex anyway.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 17, 2010 16:44:07 GMT -5
so, cherylannhannah, I am not sure you understand how these conscience clauses operate in the United States. jemand is not at all overstating the case. By the way, I started birth control at the age of 13 for these kinds of painful, frequent periods. I was several years from becoming sexually active at that point. Also? My only serious relationships have been with women, for whatever that's worth. I do not now--and haven't ever--depended on birth control for the function of contraception. Not that this is any of the pharmacist's business, but I probably wasn't ever going to get pregnant through consensual heterosexual sex anyway. I'm aware that there are off-label uses for many drugs. I often recommend herbs to people that have known abortifacient effects though I am not recommending them for that reason. What a client does with them outside of what I am recommending them for is on their own head. I'll try to be more careful in my reading of the posts. I'm curious though, how many people have actually run into these types of practitioners? Are there any stats or studies demonstrating that this is a significant problem in your medical system? I don't know of any pro-life doctors here who would stand by and allow a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy. Something like this would surely hit the news especially since Canada has a very liberal abortion law. The pro-choice camp would go ballistic if something like this ever cropped up. I think VF's position represents the far extreme and though I'm pro-life, I think they are completely out to lunch. I am also under the impression that their position is a fairly recent articulation of this policy and isnt' widespread. Am I mistaken in thinking this? And btw, after I am more or less recovered and back to work you wont' have to worry that I will be posting as much as I have been in the last few days in case people are already sick of hearing from me. Using my brain is about the only exercise I can accomplish right now and I get bored doing not much.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 17, 2010 17:45:16 GMT -5
cherylannhannah: I have encountered these kinds of doctors and pharmacists. You are in CANADA, which is not on the whole encumbered by as many laws capitulating to the Christian Right as the United States. Do you have these conscience clauses in effect, and, if so, have you compared them to ours? They were updated and broadly expanded last year (or was it two years ago... 2008?) such that doctors are legally protected for denying abortion for any reason.
I have lived in Canada, and I have also lived in the United States. I know that Dominionism has far more political power and that the Canadian Christian church is not, in general, nearly as politicized as the US Christian church. I am not familiar with the degree of religious protections that you have in Canada, but we do have them in the United States. We also have a far more religious population. Google any of the big buzz words from this thread along with "Target" or "Wal-Mart," and you'll find that both pharmacy chains have long allowed their pharmacists to do this without penalty (even before the expansion of the conscience laws). You will find multiple instances of the evidence that you're asking for because, yes, it does happen, and it happens on a wide scale.
I have not heard whether or not it has led to death. The expanded laws have not been on the books for all that long, but it is legally protected if it does lead to death. Which is the point.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 17, 2010 17:59:59 GMT -5
I'm curious though, how many people have actually run into these types of practitioners? Are there any stats or studies demonstrating that this is a significant problem in your medical system? I don't know of any pro-life doctors here who would stand by and allow a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy. Something like this would surely hit the news especially since Canada has a very liberal abortion law. The pro-choice camp would go ballistic if something like this ever cropped up. I don't know if there are any studies, but I will try to look if I have time. In the meantime, if any one else has a moment to provide a couple of links, please do. In the previous comment, I discussed some of the differences between Canada and the United States. You are right that the things that happen in the US could probably not be passed in Canada, and fortunately for all of you. US abortion laws are largely controlled by states in the US, and they differ dramatically from state to state. Not as much as they did before Roe, but still quite dramatically... The US does not have very liberal abortion laws. It has relatively conservative ones and abortion is highly regulated. By the way, what do you think people like me should do if we get pregnant, consensually or otherwise? I have a septate uterus and a flattened, malformed cervix that could not hold for the duration of a pregnancy. Without some very expensive surgeries, a pregnancy for me would be quite life-threatening. I don't believe that it would be morally right for me to attempt to carry a child to term when there are other options should I decide to raise a child. The expenses are more than I can handle, and I am not interested in having multiple surgeries in order to increase the possibility of bringing a child to term with both of us intact. I used to think that I could never have an abortion even if I subscribed to pro-choice politics, but this is not actually true. I would have an abortion within the first few weeks if I became pregnant, and I believe that this would be the most humane option for me and for the fetus. It's far easier for me to justify the $350 fee than it will be to justify the untold $1000's that an actual pregnancy will require. I am not willing to go into debt and/or overload the already-broken healthcare system in order to have multiple surgeries that I don't want or need... For the purpose of anyone's ideology. The thing is... There are exceptions everywhere, aren't there? When you start upholding a doctor/border-guard's right to lie to you about the facts, you get into some very slippery moral territory that very quickly puts a lot of people at risk.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 17, 2010 19:48:09 GMT -5
I'm curious though, how many people have actually run into these types of practitioners? Are there any stats or studies demonstrating that this is a significant problem in your medical system? I don't know of any pro-life doctors here who would stand by and allow a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy. Something like this would surely hit the news especially since Canada has a very liberal abortion law. It is the opposite here. A woman's life was recently saved in a Catholic hospital in Arizona under this very situation-- and the nun who approved the surgery was excommunicated. THAT made the news. A woman's life was saved and people are pissed! www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/05/17/roundup-saving-mothers-life-gets-excommunicatedThat isn't the first news article I read about it, or the most detailed. Her status was so bad she *could not be moved* to another hospital, and was rapidly deteriorating. The normal thing, the thing that wouldn't have hit the news, is that she would be just another statistic in the US's shamefully high maternal mortality stats. And yes, the US has an ABYSMAL record on maternal mortality compared to pretty much every other developed country. The mortality rate in Austria is 4 per 100,000, but in the US it is 11. Many things contribute... but I don't doubt that conscience clause laws certainly help inch that up. here are two unicef pages: www.unicef.org/infobycountry/canada_statistics.htmlwww.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.htmlA woman in Canada has a 1 in 11,000 chance of dying of maternal related causes, the same stat in the US is 1 in 4,800. More than twice as likely. The pro-choice camp would go ballistic if something like this ever cropped up. We are talking about easily avoidable, gratuitous DEATH here for no benefit whatsoever... shouldn't the so-called "pro-LIFE" camp be the one that's MORE ballistic?? But no... it's the camp causing the problem. Anyway, this last bit is probably just another jab at the hypocrisy of these people who would write and support and take advantage of these laws.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jun 17, 2010 20:21:21 GMT -5
I don't know of any pro-life doctors here who would stand by and allow a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy. Something like this would surely hit the news especially since Canada has a very liberal abortion law. I am in Canada as well. My sister is a medical student here and a fairly conservative Christian. She is involved with groups of Christian medical students and doctors, and she has likewise said that no obstetrician in Canada would refuse abortion in an ectopic pregnancy or similarly life-threatening situation. Now, she believes that this is true of doctors in the States as well--she recently went to a conference that included some very conservative Christian doctors and medical students from the States, some even QF, and said that they'd be willing to end an ectopic pregnancy--but I think she is being rather naive. I told her that women in families that don't believe in contraception get very physically run-down, and that the kids often don't get a good education and have to spend most of their time looking after younger siblings, and she was all "They're doctors, they won't get run down. It's good for kids to have some responsibility." She's a nice person, but SO freaking naive it's ridiculous, and doesn't believe me when I tell her she is.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 17, 2010 20:32:48 GMT -5
By the way, what do you think people like me should do if we get pregnant, consensually or otherwise? I have a septate uterus and a flattened, malformed cervix that could not hold for the duration of a pregnancy. Without some very expensive surgeries, a pregnancy for me would be quite life-threatening. I don't believe that it would be morally right for me to attempt to carry a child to term when there are other options should I decide to raise a child. The expenses are more than I can handle, and I am not interested in having multiple surgeries in order to increase the possibility of bringing a child to term with both of us intact. FWIW, I NOW have difficulty in upholding principle over lives. As I stated elsewhere, principles are to serve us, not the other way around. My thoughts on your situation: I would support whatever you decided to do. The link to the philosophical essay on abortion that was posted on another thread has caused me to do a lot of thinking about the difficult situations where it appears you have, through no fault of their own, one life pitted against another. It is easy to be rigid in one's views and black and white because then you don't have to think. Just apply principle A to situation B and damn the torpedos! It's things like this that make me thankful for God's mercy that would cover even a situation where there is no clearly defined answer about what to do. I don't think it would be sinful either way, and if you opted for carrying a baby as far as you could, I would think you a heroine in the face of some very big odds! The thing is... There are exceptions everywhere, aren't there? When you start upholding a doctor/border-guard's right to lie to you about the facts, you get into some very slippery moral territory that very quickly puts a lot of people at risk. Unfortunately, ethics are never as cut and dried as we would like them. I'm thinking of the case of Rahab in the OT who lied in order to protect the Israelite spies and then was rewarded by God for it. In fact, the whole profession of spying raises some interesting ethical questions because it is based on deceit.
|
|