Rape victim denied emergency contraception

[Alonzo]

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Donny-Deutsch-Pl.mov

[lily]

My first response was outrage.......then I thought about the emergency room, rape and who else is there with the victim. Although after going through something as traumatic as rape, this woman shouldn't have to...but there are others there that would give it to her.

I also think that if this doctor is so against it, he should not be taking care of rape victims.

[Labrocca]

I think the doctor has every right to deny her the pill. Really if she became pregnant that's NOT a health problem per se. And as stated...she could have gotten a different doctor. Lily might be right that he may want to recluse himself from helping rape victims.

[bobbylien]

Its not up to the doctor to legislate morality. If she and her parents were okay with it, let the girl have the pill. Its not an abortion anyways, plan B stops fertilization.. it doesnt abort the fetus. It works the same way that regular birth control does.

[Labrocca]

From wikipedia...about the hippocratic oath.


Several parts of the oath have been removed or re-shaped over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised non-Abrahamic deities, advocated teaching of men but not women, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion, euthanasia, or abuse of the prescription pad. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues associated with HMOs, living wills, and whether morning-after pills are technically closer to prophylactics or an abortion.

Changed portions of the oath:
To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians. This too has largely disappeared.

Not to teach medicine to other people. If taken seriously, a physician who attempts to educate or make aware of treatment options, even online, to anyone not enrolled in medical school would lose his or her license.

To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in discussions of euthanasia.

To never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in the U.S. and most other countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions.

To never attempt to induce an abortion. The wide availability of abortions in much of the world suggests that many physicians no longer feel bound by this.

To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").

To avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too difficult for physicians, and therefore was left for surgeons (specialists). It is interesting how early the value of specialization was recognized. The range of knowledge and skills needed for the range of human problems has always made it impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. This also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.

To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting "good purposes," such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.

To avoid sexual relationships or other inappropriate entanglements with patients and families. The value of avoiding conflicts of interest has never been questioned.

To keep confidential all private patient information. Confidentiality between physician and patient continues to be valued and protected, but governments and third-parties have occasionally encroached upon it.


Seems that if an old school doctor is serious about his oath then he did what he felt was best.

[bobbylien]

Actually, very very few schools include any of those things.
This is the most commonly used variation of the hippocatic oath.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Those lines you put up are the ones which have been abandoned by most medical schools.
This won't be a big issue from now on anyways since it will soon be available to everyone over 18.

[Drocket]

And again, even if this particular doctor's particular hippocratic oath DID include a (very uncommon) proscription against abortion, it doesn't matter in this case in the slightest, as the drug does *NOT* cause an abortion, any more than using a condom qualifies as an 'abortion'.

[Labrocca]

A condom is against the Catholic rules. As a matter of fact all birth control is immoral in the eyes of Catholics.

[bobbylien]

A condom is against the Catholic rules. As a matter of fact all birth control is immoral in the eyes of Catholics.

What about your hippocratic oath argument?

So if your daughter were raped you wouldn't give her the morning after pill?
I look at rapes completely different than consentual sex, if the woman didn't consent then the child shouldn't be born. Could you imagine growing up knowing that you were the result of your mother being raped? Your father would be in prison for your entire life too. Why force one rape to change this girls life for 19 years? If she chooses not to take the pill, fine. But to go out of your way to not let her have access to the pill because of your religion is wrong. This 'doctor' should have his medical license revoked.

[Cobra]

I think the doctor has every right to deny her the pill. Really if she became pregnant that's NOT a health problem per se.
He may have had the right to tell her he could not dispense it dues to his beliefs but he had no right to deny her access to it. He should have had to immediately sent her to another doctor and inform her he would be able to dispense it to her. She had every right to legally use and ask for that drug, she asked, could pay, and it should have been provided.

[sbannon]

Funny how some refuse to complain about activist Doctors and Pharmacists the way they do Judges... as if someone in the Healthcare profession has any right to interpret and rewrite the law.

What's legal is legal, period. Your job [the Doctor in this case] is to do what's in the best interest of your patient's physical and mental health. In this case, the patient is a rape victim, not a possible child that may or may not result from the rape; and clearly ensuring that no pregnancy occurs is what's best for this patient at the moment.

Pharmacists too, they exist for one purpose only, to distribute the narcotics that doctors prescribe for their patients. Those who refuse to fill certain prescriptions should be fired, not for their personal beliefs--but for bringing them into their work place and refusing to do their job.

If your beliefs won't allow you to perform the duties of your job, fine, get a new job. It's your problem and shouldn't be forced upon others. This and every similar incidence is no bigger issue than just that, people refusing to do their jobs.

As long as the procedure or medication is approved and legal doctors and pharmacists should be expected and required to provide them--just like the truck driver is expected and required to deliver his loads. Leave the beliefs and home-life dribble at home and just do your darn jobs, it'll relieve a ton of unnecessary drama in the world.

[Labrocca]

Good points sbannon...but I fail to see the relationship of an activist doctor when only dealing with a single patient.Â*Â*She can seek another doctor...he isn't creating precedent.


He may have had the right to tell her he could not dispense it des to his beliefs but he had no right to deny her access to it.

He did no such thing..where does it say he denied her access?Â*Â*He simply refused to offer it himself.Â*Â*We all know she could easily have asked for another doctor (most likely she did but the story doesn't say that).Â*Â*She wasn't denied access...she was denied HIS access to it. She needed to get it elsewhere.Â*Â*I don't see the problem.


Ok so what if she was a month pregnant and he had refused to perform the abortion...is he still wrong for it? At what point can a doctor say this is against my personal belief so I won't participate? Do you think any doctor should be FORCED to perform any procedure?

[Alonzo]

Ok so what if she was a month pregnant and he had refused to perform the abortion...is he still wrong for it? At what point can a doctor say this is against my personal belief so I won't participate? Do you think any doctor should be FORCED to perform any procedure?

Doctors should have to perform the duty their job entails, barring unreasonable changes (ie. a hospital starts performing abortions and wants all doctors to perform them) or pre-arranged agreements with the employer. In such cases it should be the employers responsibility to have an alternative readily available and accessible to anyone needing one.

[sbannon]

At what point can a doctor say this is against my personal belief so I won't participate? Do you think any doctor should be FORCED to perform any procedure?
Just wanted to comment on this question. A Doctor working in a Hospital E.R. is nothing more than an employee working for an employer. Any procedure or medication that is legal and which the employer says by policy should be provided to patients is what the Doctor should do, period. If he doesn't like it, find a new occupation or area of medicine to go into.

There's no point when any individual in any profession has the right to refuse to do their job because of personal beliefs and still get to keep that job. You either do what's expected of you or move on. Yet more and more of this behavior is being tolerated by hospitals and pharmacies, that's activist Healthcare and it has been precedent setting in the sense that as each gets away with it more become encouraged to do it.

There are 2 distinct issues here. The first is society wide and deals with abortion and contraceptives.

The second, and most related to this story is poor job performance. If you want to be a Doctor but don't wish to perform abortions or provide certain medications due to personal beliefs, then go into a field of medicine where they aren't found. Be a foot, eye, ear-nose & throat Doc. Stay out of Emergency and OB/GYN medicine, because your personal beliefs are the equivalent to being unqualified for those fields when they prevent you from providing legal and accepted care.

It's no different than telling the high-school drop out to find something other than Rocket Science for a vocation. It's not being mean it's being practical.

And in the mean time, if these Docs and Pharmacists want to become activists and lobby to change the laws that's fine. But work at it through supporting legislation, not on the job at other's expense.

[dsanthony]

Doctors have a right to personal morality. Like anyone else, they should never be forced to commit an act they believe to be immoral, without strong reasons. This woman could have gone to a different hospital or doctor if she was worried about getting pregnant.

I know PC types will say that the doctor has no right to violate their PC code. God save us.

[Labrocca]

He could be still in residency which means he may be FORCED to be in the emergency room. That may NOT be his choice. Even if it was how often does an "emergency abortion" need to be performed. It's bullcrap. Her life was not in danger that she needed him to do such a thing.


What law did this guy break? NONE...You can't say her civil rights were broken because it wasn't treatment she was denied. Where is this standard procedure in rape victim treatment to give them the pill? Is it a policy in the hospital? Or was this the mom insistent on this. Also how do we know the doctor didn't ask her about when her last period was and consider that? All we are hearing is the mom saying some crap and the host being obnoxious about his outrage....bullcrap.

[dsanthony]

bullcrap? exactly! You're getting a good handle on democratic, PC politics.

[lily]

Labrocca


He could be still in residency which means he may be FORCED to be in the emergency room. That may NOT be his choice. Even if it was how often does an "emergency abortion" need to be performed. It's bullcrap. Her life was not in danger that she needed him to do such a thing.

I thought we both agreed back on page one that the doctor should have referred her to another doctor?


Where is this standard procedure in rape victim treatment to give them the pill? Is it a policy in the hospital?

I would imagine that this varies. I would also imagine that it is standard procedure to give the young woman an AIDS cocktail, whether they knew her attacker had AIDS or not.

You can't say her civil rights were broken because it wasn't treatment she was denied.

I don't recall anyone saying her civil rights were violated.....but preventative treatment was denied. Was it in the article? As for your starement on her mother. Labrocca, rape is a violent crime. I would imagine both the mother and daughter were traumatized. I can't see making their situation worse.

I think sbannon said it best here:

Funny how some refuse to complain about activist Doctors and Pharmacists the way they do Judges... as if someone in the Healthcare profession has any right to interpret and rewrite the law.

[sbannon]

What law did this guy break? NONE...
I never said he broke a law, I said he refused to do his job. There is a difference. That's why I didn't say he should be prosecuted, I said he should lose his job for refusal to do it.

It's really simple to me, if the hospital policy is to provide this narcotic to rape victims when requested (as I understand to be the case with this story) then the Doctor, who is an employee of that hospital should be expected to do so.

I don't care about personal beliefs, they have no place what-so-ever in one's workplace. This Doctor is paid to do a job, not be a moral guide for others who aren't seeking one in the first place. If he wants to preach morality he should have had a different major in school.

Labrocca, let me ask you this. As the owner of this site you pick the Mods, correct? What if one from the Left started editing every posting from members who lean to the right simply because his or her personal beliefs demanded the "protection" of other readers from what he/she believed was right-wing propaganda. Would you tolerate that for long?

Of course you wouldn't. You have a reasonable expectation that the Mods you approve will administer the forums within the stated rules and in a fair and balanced manner.

Don't employers have the same right to expect their employees to perform the various functions of their job as well without the interference of personal beliefs?

Employers can't discriminate against one's personal beliefs, but they shouldn't have to accommodate them in the workplace either. If you can't perform the requirements of your job, get a new job.

[lily]

Shoot...........the article is no longer up. I never noticed if the hospital was a privately owned Catholic Hospital or state funded one......anyone remember?

[Labrocca]

Shoot...........the article is no longer up. I never noticed if the hospital was a privately owned Catholic Hospital or state funded one......anyone remember?


Good point...but lily....AIDS is life threatening. That's NOT the same thing. She is in no immediate or long-term danger if she does become pregnant. And while you might consider the possible baby a rapists...it's still 1/2 your child as well. I think in a traumatic aftermath of rape making such a decision may not be wise. If she truely wishes she can get an abortion at a later time. I do believe the patient had a right to seek another doctor. I don't believe the doctor is obligated to recuse himself in the matter.

As for you Mr. Sbannon...my sites has policies. If mods break them then that's a problem. If something happens and a new policy is created that's a different matter and not a problem with the moderator themselves.

[Alonzo]

Good point...but lily....AIDS is life threatening.Â*Â*That's NOT the same thing.Â*Â*She is in no immediate or long-term danger if she does become pregnant. And while you might consider the possible baby a rapists...it's still 1/2 your child as well.Â*Â*I think in a traumatic aftermath of rape making such a decision may not be wise.Â*Â*If she truely wishes she can get an abortion at a later time.Â*Â*I do believe the patient had a right to seek another doctor.Â*Â*I don't believe the doctor is obligated to recuse himself in the matter.Â*Â*


Labrocca, think about that for a second. You know that most people don't simply laugh off an abortion, it's a difficult decision for many. Many are opposed to it in certain situations, but find their situation to be justifiable. Most of those people though do not have an issue with emergency contracpetion. Your suggestion could require someone to get an abortion they wouldn't otherwise have needed. Why make a rape victim go through that? Or you may even end up with the victim having to carry the child to term, since they couldn't get the contraception and are morally oppossed to abortion. You may not find that troubling, but most rape victims aren't going to want to carry around a constant reminder of their rape.

[sbannon]

As for you Mr. Sbannon...my sites has policies. If mods break them then that's a problem. If something happens and a new policy is created that's a different matter and not a problem with the moderator themselves.
That's my point exactly. This isn't some new situation that's happened for the very first time. Established policy at this hospital (as I understand it and please correct me if anyone has seen differently on this story) is to provide the Plan-B pill to rape victims who request it. The Doctor had a responsibility, not just to his patient's well being but to his employer to provide the medication when asked for it. He had no right to rewrite policy as he did.

Does the Jewish checkout clerk at Blockbuster have a right to refuse to ring up your rental of The Passion of the Christ because he feels it portrays Jewish people in a negative light? Would you expect that clerk to be fired for refusing to rent you the video? Of-course you would.

My argument isn't over the social debate on Plan-B or any other medications or procedures, but rather that this employee brought his personal life and beliefs into the workplace and refused to do his job correctly for them. That behavior shouldn't be tolerated anywhere by people with responsibilities. Be they a Mod on some forum, a retail clerk or a Doctor working for a hospital.

[Labrocca]

Established policy at this hospital (as I understand it and please correct me if anyone has seen differently on this story) is to provide the Plan-B pill to rape victims who request it.

I don't think this was established. Much of the story was from one side.

Hey guys...I understand your point. I just am not outraged at the doctors decision and don't think he should even be repremanded for it.

[sbannon]

Established policy at this hospital (as I understand it and please correct me if anyone has seen differently on this story) is to provide the Plan-B pill to rape victims who request it.

I don't think this was established. Much of the story was from one side.

Hey guys...I understand your point. I just am not outraged at the doctors decision and don't think he should even be repremanded for it.
I've actually read two accounts of this story besides the video, I just can't find them now to link to unfortunately. I believe it was an established policy at the hospital but won't argue the point since I can't find the stories now to see either way. That's why I asked if anyone had seen it differently in this story.

Labrocca, let me ask you in all honesty though, is your position what it is because you agree with the Doctor's personal beliefs--which is a completely understandable position--or do you honestly believe employees have the right to refuse to do their job any time a task contradicts with some personal opinion or belief?

[lily]

Labrocca

Â*Â*If she truely wishes she can get an abortion at a later time.

All the reasons Zo gave are damned good reasons. I have to ask another one though........I think I understand which side of the abortion issue you are on, I may be wrong, but I'm still going to ask.

Before Roe vs Wade came into effect, it was permissable to get an abortion if you were raped or if the mother's health was in danger. So even under the "strictest" rulesÂ*abortion was allowed for rape. Now we have the medical marvel of plan B. Which would you rather have, a possible abortion of a fetus, when it is just egg meeting sperm, or an abortion when the fetus is already started to develop? Also keep in mind, that there is a 50/50 chance the woman may not even be pregnant.

Â*Â*I don't believe the doctor is obligated to recuse himself in the matter. Â*

I'm curious. What made you change your mind on this matter? On page one you agreed.

[Labrocca]

Established policy at this hospital (as I understand it and please correct me if anyone has seen differently on this story) is to provide the Plan-B pill to rape victims who request it.

I don't think this was established.Â*Â*Much of the story was from one side.

Hey guys...I understand your point.Â*Â*I just am not outraged at the doctors decision and don't think he should even be repremanded for it.
I've actually read two accounts of this story besides the video, I just can't find them now to link to unfortunately. I believe it was an established policy at the hospital but won't argue the point since I can't find the stories now to see either way. That's why I asked if anyone had seen it differently in this story.

Labrocca, let me ask you in all honesty though, is your position what it is because you agree with the Doctor's personal beliefs--which is a completely understandable position--or do you honestly believe employees have the right to refuse to do their job any time a task contradicts with some personal opinion or belief?


If what you say is true that the hospital had a standing policy of giving the pill for it's rape victims then the doctor should be reprimanded..or even fired. If it was my daughter...I would just take her to another doctor and complain about the doctor later..which very well may be what this woman did.

However if it's not hospital policy then the doctor imho wasn't obligated to offer it. There is leeway in the workplace for personal beliefs.