Oklahoma Rape Victim Denied Emergency Contraceptives. Doctor Cites Religious Objection As Reason

Originally posted by HoppedUp
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

I do not agree with you. I can't even say I understand where you are coming from. I'd like to know what YOU would do, if you found yourself in her situation. Freshly attacked by a monster, and now, what? Holding on to some principle of protecting a would-be/could-be but not even yet viable life-form, that is of your very attacker. Sick principles, in my opinion.

My choice would be totally different then most, so answering it would not contribute to this thread.

I would say that both parties have the freedom of choice, the victim can choose a doctor that can perform the proceedure, or choose to use over the counter measures. The doctor can choose to believe life begins as conception and choose not to cause harm to a child unless the parents health is in jeopardy.

I see no issues with the options and free choices implemented in this article.

For the record, I believe all life is created by God, therefore if I am blessed to raise a creation of God then praise be to God for it (see this is why my answering will not progress this thread any lol). I would never look at an innocent child and place my anger towards a guilty man upon it, your mind and how you think is up to you not the result of others (no matter what victim complexes psycologists use to justify wrong thinking).

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Another silly conclusion. In the event the mothers life is in danger physically then the rules change; this woman was in no physical danger as a result of the pregnacy, therefore it is NOT a tree vs. fruit scenario in any way. In the event that is was and this doctor still refused tto abort the baby to save the mother hen you would have a valid argument. The only life in danger for this doctor was the unborn child's (in her opinion) and her oath requires "no harm done".

But lets compare apples to apples and keep your hypotheticals within reason, it will help keep this thread on track.

It's only 'silly' and 'apples and oranges' because you disagree with me. Yet, while I have expressed the fact that I don't get your views, I have yet to attack you for having them. Moving on

Says who the situation would change then? Then I am at the mercy of his or her medical opinion. Another hospital down the road may say something different. In the end, the patient is the one who suffers should there be a bad or poorly made "opinion", and these religious fueled opinions are not wise. Would it kill the patient to render the service or give the medicine? No, it would not. Again, in this case, the "child" the doctor is "saving" is HYPOTHETICAL. The girl would not even piss + on a pregnancy test yet if one was given. The medicine would serve to PREVENT implantation, thus preventing pregnancy or conception in the first place. Gee wiz...

reply to post by HoppedUp


I didn't mean to imply you had or hadn't taken the appropriate precautions, and I certainly never implied major surgeries were necessary just as a precaution.

What I mean is: you know what causes pregnancy. There are no such thing as "accidents." That is the stupidest argument I ever hear. There is only 1 way to get pregnant, and there are 1000 ways to avoid that 1 way, and none of them involve surgery.

As for the puppy, yes, seriously. If a doctor believes a fetus is a human life, then asking a doctor to murder that life is a million times more inappropriate than asking you to kill a puppy. My child was born at the end of the second trimester. He could easily have been aborted, and it was even suggested as an option at one point. Believe me, he is a BABY! Not a "fetus," but a living, breathing, grasping, cuddling, loving BABY! After the experience I had with my child, there is no way in hell I could ever approve of a late-term abortion. Now, I have no problem with the RU486, or whatever they call it now, but some people do, and that is their right. We can't force our doctors to ignore their own feelings. Doctors have to have latitude in the way they treat patients.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Not "equipped" to handle rape cases? Seriously? Really?

Seriously. Really. Read the original story. They don't have the rape unit there.
You cant make a 75 bed 'acute care facility' suddenly turn into a rape trauma center.
If they don't have it .. they dont' have it.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
What exactly do you need to "equip" yourself to "handle" rape cases? Compassion and understanding?

READ THE LINK PROVIDED BY THE OP -

From the source:

The woman and her daughter were reportedly turned away because the hospital did not have any nurses who conduct rape exams on staff. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) are specially trained professionals who deal only with the delicate process of conducting rape exams. The SANE program is coordinated through the YWCA and is a collaboration with local law enforcement, the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office and public health officials. The collaborative effort is designed to ensure evidence is properly collected and stored without re-traumatizing the victim and ensuring the most effective prosecution of the perpetrator possible.

The 75 bed 'accute care facility' did not have the resources to help the rape victim. The rape victim was sent to another medical care facility that did have the resources. If you want to catch a rapist ... then you do things according to procedure and with people who are trained professionally to handle it. If you just want to play doctor and pretend to know what you are doing in a rape case, then the victim doesn't get the proper care and the rapist will not ever go to jail because evidence hasn't been properly collected.

Originally posted by HoppedUp

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Another silly conclusion. In the event the mothers life is in danger physically then the rules change; this woman was in no physical danger as a result of the pregnacy, therefore it is NOT a tree vs. fruit scenario in any way. In the event that is was and this doctor still refused tto abort the baby to save the mother hen you would have a valid argument. The only life in danger for this doctor was the unborn child's (in her opinion) and her oath requires "no harm done".

But lets compare apples to apples and keep your hypotheticals within reason, it will help keep this thread on track.

It's only 'silly' and 'apples and oranges' because you disagree with me. Yet, while I have expressed the fact that I don't get your views, I have yet to attack you for having them. Moving on

Says who the situation would change then? Then I am at the mercy of his or her medical opinion. Another hospital down the road may say something different. In the end, the patient is the one who suffers should there be a bad or poorly made "opinion", and these religious fueled opinions are not wise. Would it kill the patient to render the service or give the medicine? No, it would not. Again, in this case, the "child" the doctor is "saving" is HYPOTHETICAL. The girl would not even piss + on a pregnancy test yet if one was given. The medicine would serve to PREVENT implantation, thus preventing pregnancy or conception in the first place. Gee wiz...

I am sorry for using the word silly, it was not meant as an attack, but was taken that way so please accept my appology for causing you to feel attacked.

The only life in danger (in the opinion of this doctor) was the unborn childs; therefore she made a decision based off of this opinion, which is her right as a professional MD.

You do not agree with this and I understand that, but it is the doctors right to make this decision and the victims right to choose a doctor that is of a different opinion.

A think that this being in Okie land had something to do with it.... enough said!

Originally posted by getreadyalready


As for the puppy, yes, seriously. If a doctor believes a fetus is a human life, then asking a doctor to murder that life is a million times more inappropriate than asking you to kill a puppy. My child was born at the end of the second trimester. He could easily have been aborted, and it was even suggested as an option at one point. Believe me, he is a BABY! Not a "fetus," but a living, breathing, grasping, cuddling, loving BABY! After the experience I had with my child, there is no way in hell I could ever approve of a late-term abortion. Now, I have no problem with the RU486, or whatever they call it now, but some people do, and that is their right. We can't force our doctors to ignore their own feelings. Doctors have to have latitude in the way they treat patients.

I understand your opinions and feelings based on what you have shared about your son. I am glad he is well. Others have different circumstances. This topic, is all the more fuel for making "morning after" type pills READILY available at an affordable price for any female citizen who wants it. As I understand, it is not available everywhere and where it is available, it is still subject to the discretion of the pharmacist on call and his/her religious or personal views...which I find is total nonsense. I can't believe people are trying to rationalize away the clear fact that the religious are being granted rights to interfere in the health care and RIGHTS of others, and it's not right at all.

reply to post by HoppedUp


There is one caveat to the argument about doctor's latitude in treatment, and pharmacists latitude in filling prescriptions. This topic is HOT in Florida, because of the prescription drug abuse problem here. Pharmacists have every right to refuse to fill a prescription for any reason, or no reason at all. They can just say no. As business people they have the right, and as pharmacists they have a duty to watch out for anything suspicious.

A doctor also has a right to not treat a patient. Similar situations.

BUT, what if there is no other doctor or no other pharmacist in the town? That happens in some rural areas. Does the doctor still have the same rights? That is where it gets tricky. It could be patient abandonment if there are no other options available. It could be discrimination. It is certainly an ugly situation.

In most cases, the people just need to find a friendlier place to do business, but if that isn't an option, then the situation gets a lot uglier, and I don't know a simple answer.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Both are entitled to their rights.

However the story details that the doctor refused to give service. Fine.
What's not fine was that the doctor denied the woman access to another doctor who would according to the story.

I'm fine with the doctor standing by her beliefs.
What I'm not fine was with her not moving aside to allow someone else to grant her request.

There's the problem.

The main reason why I love these sorts of threads, is because the degree of Leftist hysteria in response to them, enormously amuses me.

I know that's wrong, or I should consider it such; but it's a guilty pleasure. Watching the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs in response to these sorts of non-issues is really hilarious. On the other side of the fence, it's a lot like watching Republicans become equally upset about flag burning.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You missed this part.
Please view the video as well.
It shows the mother telling her side of the story.

The young woman asked the doctor whether or not emergency contraceptives were available and whether the doctor was simply refusing to provide them. The nurse told her “I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my belief.” The doctor refused to help her, even though she had just been raped, and refused to find another doctor to help her.

reply to post by petrus4


I also enjoy those right wing birther threads as well.
hehe

Originally posted by petrus4
The main reason why I love these sorts of threads, is because the degree of Leftist hysteria in response to them, enormously amuses me.

I know that's wrong, or I should consider it such; but it's a guilty pleasure. Watching the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs in response to these sorts of non-issues is really hilarious. On the other side of the fence, it's a lot like watching Republicans become equally upset about flag burning.

Interesting point of view. I assume you are not a woman and have not been raped. Perhaps it would be an issue to you then?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Interesting point of view. I assume you are not a woman and have not been raped. Perhaps it would be an issue to you then?

CJ

You mean like if you were a man, you likely wouldn't see that entire gender as disposable?

Probably, yes.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to

 

You missed this part." The nurse told her “I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my belief."
Please view the video as well.
It shows the mother telling her side of the story.

There is no proof anyone even said that, the nurse and doctor
informed them the hospital had no trained staff on hand to handle the case.

The woman and her daughter were reportedly turned away because the hospital did not have any nurses who conduct rape exams on staff. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) are specially trained professionals who deal only with the delicate process of conducting rape exams.

www.addictinginfo.org...

I highly doubt THIS was SAID
" The nurse told her “I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my belief."

If it really went against this nurses belief
where are the other cases of her telling people this?

Certainly there have been more then one person
who have went there for the morning after pill in rape situations,
and this nurse has dealt with them..

What makes more sense, this is a small hospital who did
not see many of these cases, and therefore simply did not have
the specific staff needed at the time..

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Interesting point of view. I assume you are not a woman and have not been raped. Perhaps it would be an issue to you then?

CJ

You mean like if you were a man, you likely wouldn't see that entire gender as disposable?

Probably, yes.

edit on 31-5-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

Riiight. Is it a myth that only women get pregnant? Apparently this is an issue for you, just not when women are raped. Got it.

CJ

Check out the website source this is coming from.
www.addictinginfo.org...
It obviously has its own agenda, and many threads on ats
recently have spawned from it.. It is as credible as infowars
It has a pro-abortion pro-gay agenda. That is why it suggests
the mothers claim is the only credible one. This is not
to find truth and deny ignorance, it is for pushing their agenda,
catering to folks (there followers) so they can blog, post, and spam it to everyone they can..

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
A think that this being in Okie land had something to do with it.... enough said!

Excuse me? I'm an Okie and a Registered Nurse. Your implied insult was uncalled for.

Not all hospitals have all amenities. If you were to get in a motorcycle wreck and require a neurosurgeon, the hospital you go to would only be required to stabilize you and send you to a facility that had the required neurosurgeon.

If an ambulance is called (rather than you or a family member transporting you), the paramedics will usually know which facilities have the treatment you're likely to need and will take you there even if there's something closer.

It's highly unlikely that a nurse or a doctor told the woman that because of their religious beliefs, contraception would not be issued. What's more likely is that if/when asked about contraception they were probably told that they don't dispense it there and it's not needed to stabilize her immediate injuries. She could pick it up anywhere (for free at health department).

Since rape is a crime that would proceed to court with any available medical information becoming highly scrutinized during a trial, not all facilities provide that service. The OSBI has rape kits but nurses can receive additional training in this specialty of health care. Still, they are few and have to be called in to collect the evidence since they don't usually get paid to sit around the facility waiting for a rape victim to come in and require their services. The samples are not just viewed as medical specimens but as evidence and require a chain of command, special training in dealing with victims of trauma, etc.

It's unfortunate that this woman was raped but her mother is making a mountain out of a molehill and, imho, adding to her daughter's trauma.

The article and the TV video from WKTV 9 is littered with "he said she said" BeeEss malarkey.

I saw nothing mentioning police reports either. Hmmm.

The video news report reminds me of a propaganda production.

What if this was staged by some ultra Left Wing outfit like Acorn or Planned Parenthood.
Not hard to do.

ObamaCare is due for judgment any week now (Gulp).

Lawsuits are galore (Gulp).

I say this was staged.

Staged !!

reply to post by ElohimJD

unless the parents health is in jeopardy.....I believe all life is created by God, therefore if I am blessed to raise a creation of God then praise be to God for it (see this is why my answering will not progress this thread any lol). I would never look at an innocent child and place my anger towards a guilty man upon it, your mind and how you think is up to you not the result of others (no matter what victim complexes psycologists use to justify wrong thinking).

Have you considered that you are NOT the victim? There are women who are raped, traumatized, and impregnated, who are unable to get to a point of "well, I'll love the baby, the creation of God".....

and you are imposing your personal values on a 24-year-old young woman who has been raped and is frightened. It's totally "subjective" for you to claim you are better than her because you would set aside the rage, trauma, memory, and result of such a horrific act.

I understand the OP's mention of being treated like "subhuman trash." Just because the girl and her mom wanted to use precautionary measures to prevent the pregnancy??.....it's classic, text-book "holier-than-thou" passive-aggressive behavior. It's about control and superiority.

It is no one's right to impose values on others -- especially individuals who find themselves in dire straits and come to that person for skilled medical help!

So that doctor didn't want to do this, fine! (Although for any "hospital" to not have the "equipment or trained staff" to treat a rape victim is a preposterous notion -- and obviously "spin" from that institution if that's what they're counter claiming). The very least she might've done is refer the young lady to someone who was not "conflicted" about it.

News-flash......that does not make it wrong for the young woman to still make a decision about her OWN LIFE, her OWN FUTURE......and to be capable of assessing her OWN DISPOSITION and circumstances to say whether or not she is ready to be an adequate mother!
It is HER BODY, and her mind, and her circumstances she has to live with!! Who are you to prescribe a point of view??