Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

She's the one taking the risk, if the male refuses to take contraception, so it is her decision alone on how to handle that danger, not the doctor's. His role is to explain the danger to her, not to enforce his own decision on how she ought to handle the matter.

No, because the risk isn't to her. The doc doesn't want to get sued over birth defects.

The pregnant female patient should be more sensitive to her doctor's needs. I see your point. He must have feared that she would refuse to get a legal abortion and lie under oath to a court that he had failed to advise her of the risk. There goes his medical license.

The risk would be a malpractice judgment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She's the one taking the risk, if the male refuses to take contraception, so it is her decision alone on how to handle that danger, not the doctor's. His role is to explain the danger to her, not to enforce his own decision on how she ought to handle the matter.

No, because the risk isn't to her. The doc doesn't want to get sued over birth defects.

The pregnant female patient should be more sensitive to her doctor's needs. I see your point. He must have feared that she would refuse to get a legal abortion and lie under oath to a court that he had failed to advise her of the risk. There goes his medical license.

The risk would be a malpractice judgment.

So malpractice risk is reduced by talking to each of the people she would have sex with while on the medication?

 

[lpetrich]

The lights are flickering in Red America
notes
ID hospital to stop delivering babies, faults Legislature | Idaho Statesman

Bonner General Health, the only hospital in Sandpoint, announced Friday that it will no longer provide obstetrical services to the city of more than 9,000 people, meaning patients will have to drive 46 miles for labor and delivery care.

… “The Idaho Legislature continues to introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care,” the hospital’s news release said. “Consequences for Idaho physicians providing the standard of care may include civil litigation and criminal prosecution, leading to jail time or fines.”

… The release also said highly respected, talented physicians are leaving the state, and recruiting replacements will be “extraordinarily difficult.”

Adam Lee continued:

The abortion bans springing up across red-state America force physicians into a cruel dilemma. If a pregnant person comes into the emergency room, hemorrhaging or suffering sepsis from a miscarriage or dying from preeclampsia—but the fetus still has a heartbeat—doctors could face criminal charges if they intervene. Their only chance is to hope that the fetus dies before it’s too late to save the mother.

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario. In Oklahoma, a woman with a molar pregnancy—a cancerous, nonviable fetus—sought medical attention, but was told the hospital couldn’t do anything to help her. Staff suggested she wait in the parking lot until she was about to die so that they could act. She gambled on traveling out-of-state instead, and got the care she needed. But it’s only a matter of time until we have an American Savita Halappanavar.

Ob-gyn specialists have been fleeing several states with strict anti-abortion laws, concerned that they might run afoul of such laws for some of the care that they might have to give.

Republican voters are demanding policies that directly harm themselves and their loved ones. In the name of lower taxes, they forced their own hospitals to close. In the name of freedom, they refused vaccines that would have saved their lives during a pandemic. Now, in the name of banning abortion, they’re heaping even more weight on this pile. They’ve passed laws which ensure that their wives, their daughters, and they themselves won’t have medical care in a crisis. Their culture-war victories are purchased at the cost of their own lives.

The people who live in red states—especially white conservatives who live in far-flung, poverty-stricken rural areas—are confronting a dire scenario of their own creation. In the very near future, they’ll have to travel hundreds of miles for routine care, if they can get it at all. The reddest, most impoverished areas will be reduced to medieval conditions. They’ll regularly suffer from outbreaks of disease, dying from conditions that modern medicine could have cured.

 

[Copernicus]

She's the one taking the risk, if the male refuses to take contraception, so it is her decision alone on how to handle that danger, not the doctor's. His role is to explain the danger to her, not to enforce his own decision on how she ought to handle the matter.

No, because the risk isn't to her. The doc doesn't want to get sued over birth defects.

The pregnant female patient should be more sensitive to her doctor's needs. I see your point. He must have feared that she would refuse to get a legal abortion and lie under oath to a court that he had failed to advise her of the risk. There goes his medical license.

The risk would be a malpractice judgment.

Yes, well it turns out that medical malpractice can lead to the loss of a medical license. In any case, it would be hard for a woman to make the case for malpractice unless the doctor actually failed to advise her of the risks involved in becoming pregnant while taking the medicine he was prescribing. As has been pointed out to you already, he could offer to speak to her partner, if she wanted to bring him into the discussion, but it really wasn't necessary that he do so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She's the one taking the risk, if the male refuses to take contraception, so it is her decision alone on how to handle that danger, not the doctor's. His role is to explain the danger to her, not to enforce his own decision on how she ought to handle the matter.

No, because the risk isn't to her. The doc doesn't want to get sued over birth defects.

The pregnant female patient should be more sensitive to her doctor's needs. I see your point. He must have feared that she would refuse to get a legal abortion and lie under oath to a court that he had failed to advise her of the risk. There goes his medical license.

The risk would be a malpractice judgment.

Yes, well it turns out that medical malpractice can lead to the loss of a medical license. In any case, it would be hard for a woman to make the case for malpractice unless the doctor actually failed to advise her of the risks involved in becoming pregnant while taking the medicine he was prescribing. As has been pointed out to you already, he could offer to speak to her partner, if she wanted to bring him into the discussion, but it really wasn't necessary that he do so.

I don't know what the rules are about exactly what's required about partners. We don't even know the drug in question. I looked up the rules for the worst drug I was aware of and found only part of the rules.

Compliance with the rules on many drugs can be onerous on the patients. Fix the system, don't blame the docs for the rules that are imposed on them.

 

[Copernicus]

She's the one taking the risk, if the male refuses to take contraception, so it is her decision alone on how to handle that danger, not the doctor's. His role is to explain the danger to her, not to enforce his own decision on how she ought to handle the matter.

No, because the risk isn't to her. The doc doesn't want to get sued over birth defects.

The pregnant female patient should be more sensitive to her doctor's needs. I see your point. He must have feared that she would refuse to get a legal abortion and lie under oath to a court that he had failed to advise her of the risk. There goes his medical license.

The risk would be a malpractice judgment.

Yes, well it turns out that medical malpractice can lead to the loss of a medical license. In any case, it would be hard for a woman to make the case for malpractice unless the doctor actually failed to advise her of the risks involved in becoming pregnant while taking the medicine he was prescribing. As has been pointed out to you already, he could offer to speak to her partner, if she wanted to bring him into the discussion, but it really wasn't necessary that he do so.

I don't know what the rules are about exactly what's required about partners. We don't even know the drug in question. I looked up the rules for the worst drug I was aware of and found only part of the rules.

Compliance with the rules on many drugs can be onerous on the patients. Fix the system, don't blame the docs for the rules that are imposed on them.

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

Neither one of us knows the details. What I'm saying is that bringing her partner in on it doesn't seem unreasonable given the dangers of some of the pregnancy class X drugs.

 

[Toni]

When it involves the actions of the partner it's reasonable to require the partner to be part of it.

Really? Medical personnel are not allowed to inform intimate partners of those who are being treated for STIs that they have been exposed, including if the intimate partner is a pregnant woman, meaning not only is her health at risk but so is the child’s.

Men are not required to bring their intimate partners if they want a vasectomy or ED medication.

I agree that it is the absolute duty of the physician to ensure that the patient is aware of medical consequences if a pregnancy occurs. I even think the doctor had a duty to ask if the patient thought it would be helpful for the partner to join in discussions so that they are also aware of adverse consequences of a pregnancy while she is being treated fir cluster headaches.

But the doctor has no right to do more than offer or to ask if the patient needs further support or guidance.

I looked up the requirements for thalidomide. Hormonal/copper IUD/tubal ligation plus condom/diaphragm/cervical cap plus a pregnancy test every cycle. A signed agreement is also required but I didn't track down what it says. In other words, every possible safety step must be taken.

Your comparisons are not relevant. And there's no issue of medical privacy here, either--it's not telling an existing secret.

1. The treatment is not thalidomide. Your example is not relevant.
2. Medical 'secret' is debatable. Involving another party in the medical treatment options of a competent adult is a violation of medical ethics.

Men who are being treated for prostate cancer with brachytherapy are told that they must use a condom to protect their partner from minor exposure to radiation. Their PARTNER is not told to insist upon using a condom. Men are not quizzed about whether they have a steady sexual partner or if they have multiple partners.

Your responses make it clear that you do not believe that girls and women of reproductive age are entitled to medical agency and that their medical needs must be set aside for the potential harm it could potentially cause an embryo should a pregnancy occur.

Why did you neglect to mention that male partners could be required to have a vasectomy?

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

Neither one of us knows the details. What I'm saying is that bringing her partner in on it doesn't seem unreasonable given the dangers of some of the pregnancy class X drugs.

ASKING her if she would like to bring her partner into the discussion as a way of getting additional support is one thing. Suggesting that she needed to have her partner is a whole different thing, as would be withholding an effective treatment.

 

[Copernicus]

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

Neither one of us knows the details. What I'm saying is that bringing her partner in on it doesn't seem unreasonable given the dangers of some of the pregnancy class X drugs.

That may be, but he doesn't have the right to make her male spouse's direct involvement a condition on her medical care. That right there is the problem.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

Neither one of us knows the details. What I'm saying is that bringing her partner in on it doesn't seem unreasonable given the dangers of some of the pregnancy class X drugs.

This insinuates either the woman is too dumb to understand the risk or the partner has a right to dictate birth control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I looked up the requirements for thalidomide. Hormonal/copper IUD/tubal ligation plus condom/diaphragm/cervical cap plus a pregnancy test every cycle. A signed agreement is also required but I didn't track down what it says. In other words, every possible safety step must be taken.

Your comparisons are not relevant. And there's no issue of medical privacy here, either--it's not telling an existing secret.

1. The treatment is not thalidomide. Your example is not relevant.

It's an example of how strict the rules can be. We don't know the drug so we can't look up the rules for it.

2. Medical 'secret' is debatable. Involving another party in the medical treatment options of a competent adult is a violation of medical ethics.

Men who are being treated for prostate cancer with brachytherapy are told that they must use a condom to protect their partner from minor exposure to radiation. Their PARTNER is not told to insist upon using a condom. Men are not quizzed about whether they have a steady sexual partner or if they have multiple partners.

The risk here is minor. The risk with some drugs is major.

Your responses make it clear that you do not believe that girls and women of reproductive age are entitled to medical agency and that their medical needs must be set aside for the potential harm it could potentially cause an embryo should a pregnancy occur.

Why did you neglect to mention that male partners could be required to have a vasectomy?

You don't impose a permanent solution for a possibly temporary situation.

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

Neither one of us knows the details. What I'm saying is that bringing her partner in on it doesn't seem unreasonable given the dangers of some of the pregnancy class X drugs.

ASKING her if she would like to bring her partner into the discussion as a way of getting additional support is one thing. Suggesting that she needed to have her partner is a whole different thing, as would be withholding an effective treatment.

I get an impression with this case that she's being dismissive of the doctor's attempts at risk mitigation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

Neither one of us knows the details. What I'm saying is that bringing her partner in on it doesn't seem unreasonable given the dangers of some of the pregnancy class X drugs.

This insinuates either the woman is too dumb to understand the risk or the partner has a right to dictate birth control.

Stealthing is a thing. Even if she tells a hookup to use a condom it might not happen.

 

[bilby]

It's an example of how strict the rules can be. We don't know the drug so we can't look up the rules for it.

The risk here is minor. The risk with some drugs is major.

When your arguments contradict each other, that's a pretty strong indicator that you're wrong.

 

[Rhea]

I get an impression with this case that she's being dismissive of the doctor's attempts at risk mitigation.

How do you get that impression? She already told the doc she does not want children, and that if she got pregnant, she would get an abortion. You’ve already stipulated that the drug was not a risk to her, but to the fetus. The doc was being a dick and trying to own her womb.

I get the impressin tha the DOCTOR is being dismissive of her wishes for her own body. And that’s the basis of her lawsuit.

Stealthing is a thing. Even if she tells a hookup to use a condom it might not happen.

And she has already said that if she gets pregnant, she will want an abortion.


Why do you defend a doctor trying to withhold care for her cluster headaches? There’s no reason. She is a state where abortions are easy to get. She has stated that does not want a pregnancy. She has been told that a prgnancy with this drug is bad. She is fine with that.

WHY DON’T YOU BELIEVE HER? Why do you think you klnow better than she does? What is it that makes you think she needs you in her life to say what she really thinks? She is an adult human and she knows far better than you what she wants withe her own body.

 

[Toni]

I looked up the requirements for thalidomide. Hormonal/copper IUD/tubal ligation plus condom/diaphragm/cervical cap plus a pregnancy test every cycle. A signed agreement is also required but I didn't track down what it says. In other words, every possible safety step must be taken.

Your comparisons are not relevant. And there's no issue of medical privacy here, either--it's not telling an existing secret.

1. The treatment is not thalidomide. Your example is not relevant.

It's an example of how strict the rules can be. We don't know the drug so we can't look up the rules for it.

2. Medical 'secret' is debatable. Involving another party in the medical treatment options of a competent adult is a violation of medical ethics.

Men who are being treated for prostate cancer with brachytherapy are told that they must use a condom to protect their partner from minor exposure to radiation. Their PARTNER is not told to insist upon using a condom. Men are not quizzed about whether they have a steady sexual partner or if they have multiple partners.

The risk here is minor. The risk with some drugs is major.

Your responses make it clear that you do not believe that girls and women of reproductive age are entitled to medical agency and that their medical needs must be set aside for the potential harm it could potentially cause an embryo should a pregnancy occur.

Why did you neglect to mention that male partners could be required to have a vasectomy?

You don't impose a permanent solution for a possibly temporary situation.

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

Neither one of us knows the details. What I'm saying is that bringing her partner in on it doesn't seem unreasonable given the dangers of some of the pregnancy class X drugs.

ASKING her if she would like to bring her partner into the discussion as a way of getting additional support is one thing. Suggesting that she needed to have her partner is a whole different thing, as would be withholding an effective treatment.

I get an impression with this case that she's being dismissive of the doctor's attempts at risk mitigation.

Where is his duty? To his patient or to his malpractice insurers?

Cluster headaches do not resolve in a few years.

 

[bilby]

She is an adult human and she knows far better than you

Oh sorry. I was under the impression that she was a woman.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You admit that you don't know the rules. Then you accuse me of blaming the docs for the rules imposed on them that you admit you don't know. If there is any evidence in the rulebook that can be mounted to defend your argument, I'm sure that it will come out in court. Right now, neither of us is aware of any such evidence. All we have is a report on a doctor who was refusing to prescribe a drug because of his feeling that his patient needed to get her male partner involved in her medical treatment and didn't trust her to do it without consulting him.

Neither one of us knows the details. What I'm saying is that bringing her partner in on it doesn't seem unreasonable given the dangers of some of the pregnancy class X drugs.

This insinuates either the woman is too dumb to understand the risk or the partner has a right to dictate birth control.

Stealthing is a thing. Even if she tells a hookup to use a condom it might not happen.

To a nunnery!

 

[Copernicus]

Personally, I think that she could have solved the problem by agreeing to get a tattoo on her chest warning prospective lovers to use contraception. Perhaps the doctor would then rest assured that she was taking his warning seriously. To solve the problem of future malpractice lawsuits, he could have her sign an affidavit to the affect of what she was advised. I don't see why we need to make such a big deal about this. There are workarounds.

 

[Elixir]

She is an adult human and she knows far better than you

Oh sorry. I was under the impression that she was a woman.

So, you already knew that she knows better than you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I get an impression with this case that she's being dismissive of the doctor's attempts at risk mitigation.

Where is his duty? To his patient or to his malpractice insurers?

Cluster headaches do not resolve in a few years.

In the real world he's going to listen to his malpractice insurers.

I think I might have found the drug--a slew of nasty things it can do to the fetus and it's basically a last resort drug for fertile women. I'm not finding anything specific about contraception requirements, though.