Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.
If doctors (or pharmacists) want the choice to impose their own religion on their patients, then at minimum need need to disclose that before ever meeting a patient. Additionally it would disqualify them from accepting any patients that are subsidized with taxpayer money.
This could act like the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes:
WARNING: this physician acts with their own religion in mind before your well being. This could be a danger to your health.
I don’t understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods – shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever – that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter’s side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.
Doctors are held to a different standard because… the mental gymnastics say it’s totally fine when it’s a woman being denied service I guess?
If these healthcare “professionals” only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.
Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.
I’m going to try again (and you know, maybe I’m just wrong but here’s what I’m seeing).
There are doctors in the medical field already, with specific beliefs that may be sexist but are not generally speaking, sexist people. There is also a shortage of doctors.
Do we really want to throw out an entire doctor (that takes years of training) because they don’t want to do a particular procedure?
There is a secondary point of when is refusal to do a procedure sexism or religion vs genuine medical objection to the harms caused (in their medical opinion).
There is an additional point where I fundamentally think legal compulsion is a terrible tool in a free society and should be used as an absolute last resort.
When it comes down to something as sensitive as medicine, I’d rather my doctor be on board or I find a different doctor vs my doctor being compelled to do something they don’t believe in or outright having no doctor to go to because … there aren’t enough.
There’s also the possibility (and it seems like in the video) that the Roe v Wade issue is also making this doctor far more skiddish even in New York State. We really haven’t heard his side and that really is an important perspective.
Surely there’s somebody else this woman could see as well? There’s no way this guy is the only one that knows about these medications and maybe another doctor would like to use a different medication anyways. There are plenty of other cases of doctors saying “you’re fine” to people regardless of gender or sex and them needing to see a different doctor before getting the right treatment.
I originally went after your analogy because it’s so beyond comparison. You might as well make an analogy between a rocket scientist and a scientologist. There are so many layers of nuance here. Driving politics into medical decisions is part of how we got here … is adding more complex “do I need a lawyer (to do what I believe is the best practice)” to a doctor’s practice really a good idea?
That presumably kind of worked for racism but I still can’t imagine the truly racist doctors were giving their best service; like we didn’t just say “you must see black patients or leave medicine” and then the problems were fixed. There are plenty of black people alive today that still distrust the institution of medicine – including my neighbor who refused to get vaccinated because he doesn’t trust doctors – because of what’s been done in the past.
Don’t get it either. I am sure it is quite possible to be a doctor and not be involved with abortion. I am an engineer and I have strong objections to working on military stuff, so I don’t work for military contractors. Other ones don’t so they do.
deleted by creator
Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they’re used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.
So let’s ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These “professionals” should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.
deleted by creator
No, they should have their medical license revoked. Doctors have to swear an oath to not intentionally or knowingly harm a patient for a reason, because their well being is their top priority. If they can’t adhere to that oath because of arbitrary religious/philosophical/political/whatever beliefs, then they have no business being a medical professional.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Your word salad is confusing.
deleted by creator
I agree. A doctor putting their own religious beliefs over established medical science and the well being of their patient is completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
Unfortunately, the original Hippocratic oath that many doctors swear to includes a line about not performing abortions or prescribing abortifacients.
It is my understanding that, at the time that version of the oath was written, that was less a prohibition of abortion and more a matter of pregnancy and abortion being under the purview of midwives, not physicians.
To that point, I wrote my own medical oath that I will hold to because I think that things like autonomy, free choice, and dignity in death are actually important.
Thank you for clarifying, I did not know that about the Hippocratic Oath. I think it’s really cool that you wrote your own Oath. Thank you for your empathy and service to humankind.
The medical school I’m currently in is an Osteopathic school that leans pretty hard into the Christian traditions/origins of osteopathy, so it’s not terribly uncommon for me to get into philosophical and ethical arguments with my classmates and professors. There are a bunch of them that I know that I’ll never change their minds about most things, but the others who listen in to those arguments might be swayed or at least given a seed of doubt to explore further.
Based on what I’ve read in r/childfree, it’s far more common than not for doctors to prioritize the needs of a hypothetical husband or fetus over those of a real live woman. I’ve also known someone in real life who couldn’t get a painful medical condition fixed until her mid 30s because the treatment caused sterility. The problem goes way beyond religion; it’s more a matter of institutional sexism and the hubris of doctors thinking they know better than any woman who says she doesn’t want kids.
I’ve been to several different OBs trying to solve my almost-two-year-long-period and every single one of them refuses to do anything for me. I’m just “too young” for them to stop me from having kids one day. And giving me a hysterectomy is “too dangerous” and “risky” when my life isn’t in danger. It doesn’t matter that I’ve tried everything they suggest. Try it again!! It’s so fucking tiring.
I’ve just given up paying the constant doctor fees to see asshole doctors anymore and just figure I’ll either stop having the problem eventually or I’ll be “old enough” (40 maybe?) to finally get surgery… It’s all a nightmare, especially in the religious south…
I’d check with a women’s group or Planned Parenthood for a doctor recommendation. They might know some sane ones.
Having been married to a sane one, I do know they’re spectacularly gunshy of affecting a woman’s fertility because it can get them sued into the ground if they do something like that to someone that someday wants kids. And patients lie, so when you tell a doctor that you don’t want kids, they assume you’re going to change your mind. And I’m not sure if there’s a disclosure you can sign that would hold up in court if you changed your mind one day. So there’s that.
I might try this! I haven’t tried Planned Parenthood yet.
Honestly I feel like I’ve tried everything to make them listen!! I’ve brought my wife with me to the appointments!! I’ve mentioned that I first brought up hysterectomies at 17 when I suffered from multi-week periods! I’ve mentioned I’m asexual and that I’m married and never even had sex so I don’t see kids in the future!
But I do get that doctors have to worry about the liars. I can get why it’s important to have the option to sue a doctor who wronged you but I wish there really was an intensive disclosure you could just do rather than run around until you find a doctor who’s willing to trust you not to regret it. It sucks all around.
my friend was having enormous clots come out during her horrifically long periods, losing the amount of blood that was actually making her anemic and causing her problems, and they still didn’t want to do anything because she was only in her 30s. thankfully she finally found a doctor who was like ‘wow yeah you need that thing taken out of there its killing you’ and she got it removed, but the fact she had to go through all that stress and pain to find anyone who would help her is absurd.
Can you find a doctor near you in the list in the r/childfree sidebar? That’s how I found mine, and she’s great. Good luck to you, I hope things turn out better. I’m sorry this is a thing :(
r/childfree has a list of providers by state that regularly provide hysterectomies. I recommend checking it out, and when you call for an appointment, say that you want a consultation for a hysterectomy and don’t say anything else. I saw one of the providers from that list and she agreed that a hysterectomy was appropriate for me (31 years old, no kids) in part because of how horrible my periods are when I’m not on continuous hormonal birth control. The only reason we didn’t schedule the surgery right then and there is because the Depo shot is working for the moment and she was concerned about how the recovery from surgery would affect my ability to study for medical school and board exams.
I actually tried three different providers from the childfree subreddit. One ended up refusing me entirely due to no insurance (I’m in Georgia and Medicaid hasn’t been expanded yet. Though there was a mini-expansion this year.) and another actually worked with me over the phone for around 2 months without making me go to an appointment and pay just to see if I had enough… “evidence” or something that they could sign off on a hysterectomy. They ended up telling me I’d need to at least re-try several things first. I couldn’t afford the surgery plus 5+ visits several hours away. The third closest option from the childfree list was in another state and couldn’t see me unless I had their state insurance coverage.
I’m trying the Depo shot now from the health department but it hasn’t helped at all. Thank you though! It’s a long road ahead.
Edit: The provider who worked with me over the phone did offer me an ablation but they couldn’t guarantee that it would fix the issues and it would cost me my entire hysterectomy savings fund so I just couldn’t justify it. I may have the term “ablation” wrong because I remember I spoke in depth about it and one other very similar procedure… Either way they were very nice at least and I can see why they are on the list.
Yeah, healthcare in this country is a hot mess in a lot of ways. Something that could help push it in the direction of getting coverage is if you have any family history of things like uterine fibroids, or gynecological cancers. It’s a pretty straightforward thing on the paperwork end of things if cancer prophylaxis is on the list of reasons.
Another thing you could consider in this capitalist hellscape is signing up for a plan off the ACA that has a deductible similar to or less than your savings. That way you would wipe out the deductible immediately, have access to more providers, and have some semblance of coverage for the rest of the year.
Wow, all it took for me was a gay man clutching my testicles during a five minute conversation about how vasectomies aren’t really reversible for me to get clipped. I was only 30 years old
“Too risky” is such bullshit anyway. My OBGYN said that at my age (22), the only risks (aside from potential complications that come with ANY surgery) were a slightly early menopause (couple years max) and higher chance of vaginal prolapse (but that they put supports in place and there are things that can be done to correct this if it occurs)
Right?? That’s pretty much what it seemed like to me too. No doctor really wanted to go into it except one mentioned that “any surgery with anesthesia can be dangerous!” and I remember I ditched that doctor on the first visit. I think a lot of it is rural areas have… less than great doctors.
Most of my doctor hopping was at least 9 months ago now so it all kinda just blurs together now.
Also, if she wanted to do it, adoptions are always needed.
Or, and hear me out, don’t let them deny medical care based on their religion.
You’d have to prove it was purely religion and not their “genuine medical opinion”.
Medical review boards.
The people refusing are openly stating that it is because of their religious beliefs. If they try to hide it then it will become apparent very quickly when their opinion always ends up with something other than the thing they oppose.
It is so easy to lie about your intentions and hide it behind legit sounding excuses, like “but you could have a child one day”.
Claiming this is due to religion isn’t accurate. This happens all the time due to plain old misogyny. Women have a tough time getting proper medical treatment at all, not just when it overlaps with religious fruitcakes.
How does anyone even become a doctor and still hold onto religion?
I mean it’s pretty easy. It doesn’t make a good marketing campaign for atheism, but the correlation between education and irreligion seems to be causal the other way. Being irreligious leads one towards more education, but becoming educated does not lead one away from religion… Getting a physics degree or medical degree just does not make you less religious.
deleted by creator
That’s true, I witnessed it firsthand, and it’s still baffling to me. Going for a degree in biblical studies and apologetics at a religious university whose draconian fundamentalist views I fully aligned with when I entered is ironically what caused me to actually question the “biblical inerrancy” doctrinal belief.
Reminds me of
Very few people come out of law school sovereign citizens.
-Scathing Atheist podcast
One thing people leave out is that there is a LOT to religion and spirituality. Christianity, for example, is not entirely defined in terms of rejecting evolution. That’s just a (tiny) part of their beliefs. When you start in a science-denying religion (worst-case scenario), it’s still only a small percent of your beliefs that contradict the science. So some people stay believers and deny the contradictory science… others stay believers “except the science”.
Many people adhere to non-science-denying religions. So while they are naturally less likely to pick a science major, if they DO pick a science major, nothing in it will knock them out of their faith.
Because medicine doesn’t require you to be atheistic and after a while some really need something that can provide hope however irrational that might be?
How do you get provided anything by just hacking your emotions with shit you know is just made up for that purpose?
Because most disagree that it isn’t real. Aetheism is by no means a common outlook
Got a source for that “most”?
The human mind is something else. I work with so many skydaddy fearing engineers. Utterly freaken brilliant people without which civilization ends in fire and feces.
“Maybe -I’M- god?”
I was struggling with Biology for my associates degree back in 2007. I happened to teach Tae Kwon Do to the daughter of one of the state university Biology professors (I was only in community College at the time) and I asked the mom to tutor me.
And goddamn. As smart as she was regarding Biology, she bought into Christianity hook, line, and sinker (her husband was a pastor).
I like that. Makes it a lot easier to vote with your wallet.
Except it doesn;t. Right now, roughly 20% of all hospitals in the US are owned by a religion; most are Catholic, and about 1/4 of them are ‘some other religion’. That is up from 12% is 1995. What that means is that, in many cases–especially when it’s an emergency–you won’t have any choice at all except to accept religion-tainted healthcare.
I’ve lived in places where the only option covered by my insurance was religions.
IMO that’s more of an insurance issue and a fair competition issue.
It’s becoming a religion issue as Catholic groups take over more and more hospitals, because they’re going to eliminate health care for things that are against their religious principles.
IMO healthcare should not be permitted to have religion interfering.
Hmm… yeah or at least, maybe not be permitted to set policy for an entire hospital?
We could start our own list. When I say “we” I mean someone else, because I’m both not smart enough to build that, and not in the right place in the world.
Even worse then the headline…
One of the nurses started calling other hospitals lying about what happened, and even found the patient on Facebook and messaged her partner
She knows has to travel outside of the state to get appointments
Well that sounds like an open-and-shut HIPPA violation case.
*HIPAA
*HIPPO
*HIPPOPOTAMUS
*WATERHORSE
And I thought the time my mom got “fired” from her primary care because the nurse flatout lied about her interaction with her was overkill…
Holy fucking Handmaid’s Tale.
“Your womb is worth more than you.”
I hope they take his license after the insurance companies drop him.
Maybe I’m just being pessimistic but I’m nervous that she’s going to lose and this whole misery machine is just going to keep churning.
Albany Medical Health Partners is who she’s suing.
The specific hospital was Glenn’s Falls.
For anyone wondering.Dang, If it was going to be an upstate hospital I figured it would have been St Peters health partners. That group is fucked.
Glenn’s Falls
What Glenn should do as she would be denied abortion in Murica!
Damn, unbelievable this shit is still happening. It was outrageous then, it’s just barbaric now.
Conservative = Regressive. The worst part is that they only pine for it because of nostalgia and nostalgia has a tendency to be viewed through rose colored glasses
To paraphrase a wise owl, when you look at something through rose colored glasses, all of the red flags are just flags.
I wonder which writer wrote that line. They should get recognition.
…. Wouldn’t they appear to be black flags?
…. So what you’re saying is you’d still have to be a total dumb ass to keep going in that direction? That’s an excellent point you made
Conservative = Regressive.
“Great Again” is just a euphemism for this.
deleted by creator
Also Canadian here, our insane conservatives would do the exact same thing if we give them power… I suspect we are soon to find out
Do your damnedest to keep them away. I’ve come to realize that the core of modern conservativism bypasses nationalities. All Western conservative leaders have the same goals.
(Conservative here meaning socially conservative largely. Fascists, not all capitalists necessarily)
I’m worried Canada is going to build a wall
As someone who’s about to go to the hospital, plz send help…and bugles
Yes, crazy town for sure, but from the headline alone it seems like this is an open and shut case of malpractice.
IANAL so wtf do I know
I visited last month and it made me realize just how bad it’s gotten. I had it in my head that I was in a reasonably safe area of the US, but it’s getting worse. I may have to actually consider the asylum for trans people if it becomes a reality :~;
I’m currently watching a handmaid’s tale. I know it’s fictional but my love for Canada has increased while watching the show.
Glens falls hospital is a toilet with entire floors that are abandoned. They don’t even have fans for the women in the birthing center because “people keep stealing them” according to the staff so all this horribly hot summer, women that are about to have or just had a baby have to sit in a pool of sweat with no moving air in their rooms. It cost several thousand a day to stay there, but they can’t provide $20 desk fans.
Damn, it really sounded like you were describing the USSR for a second but then you said “It cost several thousand a day to stay there…”
This kind of shit makes me sad every time I see it. Unbelievable the lengths some women have to go to get the medication they need. I am so tired of these types of doctors.
Not just medication, but just choices regarding their bodies in general. It’s appalling. A friend of mine doesn’t want kids at all. She has been denied twice to have an elective hysterectomy. The doctors told her they won’t in case she decides to have kids.
She can always ask for a bilateral salpingectomy. A lot of CF women have successfully had that done as IVF is still possible. If, however, she has endometriosis which is why she actually wants the hysterectomy done, then that’s a fair bit harder. I’m unsure if there’s a CF community on Lemmy, but the one on the other site had a lot of resources on how to talk with medical practitioners to get referred to someone who would do the treatment.
Yep, the reddit community had (and still has, afaik) a community gathered list of providers in each state where community members had had luck getting sterilized.
I found my OBGYN through this list and actually have my hysterectomy a week from today. Minimal convincing of the doctor necessary - just explained why I wanted it (terrible, heavy periods with heavy cramps AND I never want kids) and she essentially said “your body, your choice” and got me scheduled. Had to wait a month due to insurance requiring a wait period but no other issues.
Thanks. I’ll relay this along to her.
This sort of thing has been common practice since long before Dobbs. And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects, especially if there is an alternative prescription that is not known to be associated with birth defects. And there almost always is an alternative.
And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects
I’d love to see some kind of citation or a medical professional’s opinion. this seems like bullshit but I’m willing to read supporting evidence if you have any.
Removed by mod
if the patient isn’t pregnant, tests not pregnant, and says they won’t get pregnant, and if they happen to get pregnant, abort the fetus, what the fuck is your problem? this woman asserted all this to the medical ‘professional’ and was still treated like a child who needed someone else’s permission to receive the treatment she needed.
Ever had a migraine?
Comparing it to Thalidomide? FUCK YOU. The drug company knew it had multiple issues with pregnancy and still put it out. Docs warned each other. This is not the same thing, but you’re trying to scare people into thinking there’s an equivalence. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415
Removed by mod
we live in a anti man society
Lol imagine writing this
“LOL”, idiot. Youre clearly not in the States obviously.
I am, indeed, in the US.
ah it’s always that way huh? dirty patients lying to their docs?
get fucked.
hopefully you get a migraine this weekend to remind you to be humane to others.
Quote me saying “dirty patients lying to their docs”
I said people change thier minds. Can’t keep going without putting words in my mouth huh? Thats telling.
My migraines were addressed. I dont get them anymore. Luckily I had docs that worked at finding the issues and didn’t prescribed me drugs they weren’t comofortable with.
At no point was I not “humane”, nice theatrics though! People like you are the reason docs are like that. Anything you dont like you throw a tantrum like a child, and then relynon virtue signaling others to cry for you with mob mentality. Thanks for proving my point.
Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:
See also:
And yes, valproate is also used to treat cluster headaches, so it could easily be the drug that the woman in the article can’t obtain.
so if anything can go wrong it shouldn’t be prescribed?
Tell that to the millions of men who have high blood pressure but pop viagra all the time. Women get a double standard of treatment and it’s bullshit. This woman didn’t want children and affirmed she would seek an abortion if she became pregnant despite birth control. Docs still put her through this garbage.
Viagra is pretty safe, as drugs go. Are you thinking of Vioxx? That stuff was taken off the market.
taking viagra with a heart condition is dangerous. but these dr’s apply two sets of rules, one for potential breeding stock and one for the rest of humanity. people are not breeding cattle, these docs need to stay in their fucking lanes and practice medicine, stop injecting their religious opinions onto patients healthcare.
Most people who take Viagra have hypertension, because hypertension is the main cause of ED. That doesn’t mean Viagra is dangerous, but you shouldn’t combine it with certain other drugs.
There is a world of difference between valproate and Viagra. Valproate causes birth defects and cognitive delay in 30-50% of pregnancies, which is astonishingly high. If Viagra caused permanent harm to even 5% of users, it would already be off the market.
so patients should be allowed to use drugs even if there are risks involved.
huh, it’s almost like you’re asserting that people should have agency. like the woman in the article, except her docs decided for her that even though she wasn’t going to have a baby either way, so no risk to pregnancy, they wouldn’t put her on that med because…? it’s disgusting.
High blood pressure. Viagra can lower your blood pressure. If you’re taking medication to treat high blood pressure, taking Viagra could cause your blood pressure to drop even further. In some cases, this could make you feel dizzy or lightheaded or cause you to faint. And if you have high blood pressure that’s not controlled (measuring higher than 170/110 mmHg), your heart may not be healthy enough for sex. If you have high blood pressure, talk with your doctor about whether Viagra is right for you. If you’re able to take Viagra, your doctor will usually prescribe a dosage for you that’s lower than the typical dosage.
Oh and this one: Potential for cardiac risk with sexual activity in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease; therefore, treatment for erectile dysfunction generally should not be instituted in men for whom sexual activity is inadvisable because of their underlying cardiovascular status.
Yup. Common practive with anti-epileptics - some have worse implications for babies than others which is why those said others are used first.
I just noticed this in the article:
Where are we drawing the line here? Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test
Nearly all hospitals have long required pregnancy tests for some things, like getting a CT scan (which involves radiation exposure). And if the test is positive, the doctor is supposed to consider alternatives.
You cut the quote off, that’s just part of what was said. That quote in full doesn’t just talk about a pregnancy test, but that on top of and as well as sterilisation, before being allowed to take a necessary drug.
Exactly. It’s not a “where do we draw the line” thing here, the line is already drawn as you allude to. It’s not just CT scans as well, some actual medications need pregnancy tests or at least active contraception use. Roaccutane, methotrexate and other DMARDs etc - everything in medicine is a risk vs reward thing and I’m sure many patient would prefer not to be on a drug that messes up their fetus whether they’re planning to keep it or not in the case they get pregnant. You’d rather just avoid the risk of that situation occuring altogether.
What birth defects would there be in this case?
I don’t know, because the medication in question hasn’t been identified.
But in general, if a medication causes any birth defects (or, more often, miscarriages) in lab animals then it won’t be used at the equivalent dose in pregnant patients. It would be unethical to try to find out what it does to a human fetus.
that is not the case here at all. READ THE GODDAMN ARTICLE. SHE WASN’T EVEN PREGNANT.
But she could become pregnant while taking the medication, which would likely lead to birth defects. Why are you struggling to understand this so badly?
even though she said she’d abort if she did, and was not attempting to get pregnant, and may have been on birth control?
It’s not a danger to the baby if you’re already committed NOT TO HAVE A KID. what part of this are YOU struggling with so badly?
Do you think we should ban women from extreme sports once they reach child bearing age? After all, it’ll put a hypothetical foetus at risk, right?
This is such a faulty line of reasoning as to be laughable. The doctor didn’t offer contraception or an alternative medicine as the WHO gives guidance on, instead he made inappropriate enquiries about her sex life and the quality of her partner.
Pragmatism is giving a patient all the information they need to make a decision, not gatekeeping access to meds because you can’t view women as anything other than a foetus factory.
So the woman was pregnant?
I don’t think so. But if a med is not to be used in pregnant patients, then it’s only used as a last resort for patients who could become pregnant while taking it.
Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it’s standard CYA for health care providers.
In the case of valproate, there are even European regulations against using it in women during childbearing years.
From the text in the original post, I assume she was not.
“determined to protect a hypothetical fetus"
She’s not pregnant, but doctors try to avoid long-term prescription of teratogenic drugs to patients who might become pregnant while taking them.
Which is super not ok. You get that, right?
No, I don’t get that. If a drug might result in birth defects, it should only be used as a last resort. And that’s not just me or some random NY docs saying it, it’s the WHO and European Medicines Agency
It is okay if there is a non teratogenic alternative that treats the targeted disease. Why risk teratogenicity when you can altogether avoid it?
NOT IN THE ARTICLE. not sure what bullshit this thread’s asserting
I suspect that such decisions are being driven by fear of tort liability WAY more than any religious or social beliefs of the medical practitioners. I’m not trying to argue in favor of denying women needed medical treatment in any way, shape, or form—it’s just that my lawyer senses are tingling, and I wonder if this is an area where Doctors are overall more likely to get sued if they offer the treatment than deny the treatment. Any MDs in here want to offer a more informed opinion of what the F is going on with such denial of care situations?
No, not in New York. These were personal decisions on the part of the health care providers, and I think this lawsuit is not only appropriate but desperately needed.
The suit is exactly targeted. When fetal personhood is considered to outweigh the life of the mother, it’s absolutely something that needs to be fought tooth and nail. When a hypothetical future fetus is determined to be more important than the life and health of the mother, we’ve entered into a zone that can only be called psychotic.
There is no case that makes it more clear that they’re turning women into sub-persons.
This is the thing, and why this case seems shoe-in. None of the bullshit the recent SCOTUS has been saying about fetal rights can possibly hold if there isn’t a fetus in the first place.
And I hate that as a pro-choicer I’m the one on the side of “erode the decision”, but we need to slowly slip law back off this ledge. First a case where we know there wasn’t a fetus. Then a case that erodes the amount of pregnancy testing a patient needs before receiving lifesaving care for herself. Etc.
I still cannot believe we live in a post-Dobbs world.
Yes, exactly. On both the childfree and 2XC forums on the other site, there were frequent first person stories about adult women being refused processed like tubal ligation without their husband’s permission (or refused outright if unmarried), or steered away from medicines that could cause pregnancy complications even if they were not and were not planning on becoming pregnant. In hindsight, of course it would have to spill over to this kind of thing post-Roe.
I really hope the ACLU/PP/NARAL and everyone else with skin in this is planning the case-by-case strategy you’re talking about. We got to where we are because the other side was playing the long game up to now, when they’re shoving everything through at once. We are going to need to roll it back with a multi-year strategy as well, unfortunately.
Thanks.
Amen, Republicans saw the gradual erosion of sexism and took that personally. I suspect part of this now is revenge.
We need groups like the Satanic Church to fight fire with fire. Sue against things that could possibly hurt a fetus if you got pregnant tomorrow. Undue stress at work? Being exposed to harmful vapors and substances? Being treated roughly by police? Sue the ever living fuck out of them.
I don’t doubt that Republicans will apply a double standard, but we need to make sure that double standard is constantly broadcasted so the people turn on them.
Yes, this is very likely driven by fear of a malpractice lawsuit. Medications that can harm a fetus are supposed to be a last resort for those who can get pregnant. So if there are other potential medications for this woman, she will likely find it difficult to get a prescription for this one regardless of the doctor’s religious beliefs.
Couldnt the MD get a written confirmation from the patient that they informed them about the risks for a potential fetus?
That’s unlikely to make a difference in court. Doctors are responsible for recommending the least risky treatment options. They aren’t supposed to leave everything up to the patient.
Next week: drinking age for women raised to 50, just in case.
Right? What sort of bullshit is this. At least booze has no real gatekeepers.
I’m surprised this happened in NY. That’s the kind of BS you’d expect elsewhere.
This is so fucked up.
Up-state NY is more rural and conservative. Towns in the mountains can be fairly small and isolated; those areas vote extremely red.
Maybe but it was apparently in the Albany metro,
I know folks commute there from the Adirondacks but Albany’s one of the least religious cities in the world apparently
As soon as you see “upstate”, you can bet it’s as provincial as any near midwestern state. I grew up along the southern border with PA. It’s more conservative than most people think. The Amish and Mennonite residents feel right at home in those communities.
Ah, I had no idea.
This wasn’t along the border though it was in Albany.
Upstate just means “not the city” of New York. I’m telling you about my knowledge of part of New York State, and, while anecdotal, I believe it is indicative of the more rural parts.
It’s upstate. Isn’t that like republican central?
Upstate, downstate, all around state. Anywhere outside of large urban centers-state.
It’s the same all around America. Further from the cities you get, the more you find people exhibiting inexplicable Southern affectation, MAGA cultism and general shitheel behavior. Like, there are portions of North East OH that are geographically closer to Canada than the Mason Dixon Line, yet they’re still flying traitor flags and sound more southern than actual southerners.
That Erie Canal route basically drags the rest of the state around kicking and screaming.
Even if the Syracuse, Utica, Rochester, Buffalo types resent being associated with NYC, they still vote the same shade of blue more often than not. Just a difference between east coast lefty vs Midwest lefty, because seriously, Erie Canal cities are just the furthest flung eastern fringes of the Midwest
I have chronic pain. I also have the privilege of being male, so I do not have to go through what she went through, but I would probably not make it out of it alive considering how severe my pain is and what I tried to do about it once before.
Good. They need to be sued.
Don’t get your hopes up. She sued pro se, which means she couldn’t find or doesn’t want a lawyer to take her case. Either way, it is very unlikely she will win.
What is the medicine in question? Any other MD (or better, neurologist) here? As far as I know, most of the standard treatment for cluster headaches are safe for pregnant women…
She’s not pregnant though so it wouldn’t matter.
Commonly they dont recommend embryotoxic medication in woman of childbearing age, as unecpected pregnancies happen and the chance for severe birth defects increase. Sometimes these can only be detected late into a pregnancy, so if the person might want to keep a pregnancy it would be not to take it.
That should be the women’s choice to make though. She doesn’t want a baby, if she has an unexpected pregnancy she will abort, so she doesn’t need to take all that into account. She should get her treatment and a prior warning about pregnancy issues that could occur
If a doctor spells out a risk to a patient and then still gives something that ends up causing harm, it is really a bit of a grey area. I don’t think that the doctor is entirely free of guilt in general. That being said, denying a medication without offering a proper substitute on this basis seems egregious. One can, under normal circumstances, control if they get pregnant or not.
Not in this case though. Worst thing the doctor could ask for a confirmation that ge informed the patient about the associated risks. I’d imagine a conversation like this:
“I inform you that this medication can cause severe birth defects in any baby in case you are pregnant. If you are pregnant you should not take this medication”
“I am not pregnant and do not plan to get pregnant. If i should be pregnant without my knowledge i’ll not keep the baby.”
“Given the strong risk associated with possible birth defects from this medication, could you please sign here, that i informed you about the risk?”
The moral grey area here is the person that ends up with birth defects I think. Not sure I agree with the policy, but remove it with a large enough population you will end up with some women ignoring advice and carrying to term.
There is no person and would never be a person. In some other case, where the pregnancy is on the table, sure, maybe then we can talk about it. But this precrime bullshit is nothing more than just another strive to remove agency from women.
That’s not how it would play out in a malpractice case.
Lawyer: You recommended my client take a medication that causes birth defects, when you could have recommended a medication that doesn’t cause birth defects. Because of that, her child has birth defects.
Doctor: Yes, but she said she didn’t want children.
Lawyer: Have you ever heard a woman say she didn’t want children, who later went on to have a child?
Doctor: Yes, it happens sometimes.
Lawyer: So birth defects are a foreseeable result of the medication you recommended, even in women who say they don’t want children?
Doctor: …
Nice imaginary conversation, I’m sure you’re a totally qualified doctor and lawyer… just have the patient sign a liability waiver dude
Liability waivers don’t protect doctors against malpractice claims.
Yes they do. In new york (where this took place), and most places, doctors are protected by liability waivers if the patient has informed consent. Read this for more information if you want an actual informed opinion on this
https://sobolaw.com/medical-malpractice/signing-a-waiver-before-surgery-can-you-still-sue/
Sure, but do not recommend is different than will not give.
But sir we have a lynch party here we can’t just use normal reasoning… that’s boring for one and also snowballing hatred is our forte
Easy solution, prescribe birth control treatment in tandem. Require insurance to pay.
It’s pretty simple really. If someone is taking a medication that creates problems if they become pregnant, and they don’t want to become pregnant, give them treatment to prevent them from becoming pregnant!
Not a Dr. but enjoy a good scientific paper.
Intranasal dihydroergotamine is a category X. Aka it causes fetal damage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971427/
Also for those that don’t know a cluster headache is a migraine on steroids. Also referred to as “suicide headaches” due to a common event prior to effective treatment.
Also, also referred to as exploding head syndrome
Exploding head syndrome is something different and a potential side effect of rapid discontinuation of SSRIs. I’ve had it and it’s different from a migraine.
Upon refreshing my memory you are correct. I just must have assumed they referred to the same thing
wtf, that sounds awful
eta: “suicide headaches,” “exploding head syndrome,” I am so fucking upset that people suffer from things like this. Idk, I just hope you guys are okay. :(
You’re right. There are other options though. Like oxygen therapy triptan, etc. I don’t understand why didn’t the doctor just prescribe the drug. Just let the patient sign an informed consent… especially if the patient isn’t pregnant and not planning pregnancy at the moment.
Because the doctor prescribed a different drug.
