Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

  • FlowVoid@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • uranibaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        From the text in the original post, I assume she was not.

        “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus"

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          She’s not pregnant, but doctors try to avoid long-term prescription of teratogenic drugs to patients who might become pregnant while taking them.

              • LavaPlanet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you see the problematic thinking in that line of thinking, though? You are saying a woman can’t be trusted to use a medication if it might cause a birth defect. She can’t be trusted not to fall pregnant, she can’t be trusted to think for herself. She can’t be trusted to keep up with birth control. She can’t be trusted when she says she doesn’t want kids ever. What the first consideration is for, is the *possible child, foremost. Not the person, the actual patient. And you’re quoting American healthcare?

                • FlowVoid@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m quoting the World Health Organization and a European agency, neither are American health care.

                  This is a universal approach taken by health care in the US, EU, and across the world. Doctors in general are pragmatists, and only concerned with outcomes. Which means acknowledging that no matter how often patients say “Trust me”, they know a certain number will have a bad outcome. The doctor’s job is to reduce that number.

                  It’s the same reason why doctors increasingly urge their patients to not keep firearms at home. Even when the patient says they can be trusted with a firearm. It’s not a matter of trust, it’s a matter of statistics.

                  • LavaPlanet@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Firearms and medication aren’t even slightly in the same ballpark. What you are arguing for is that all women of child baring age should never be allowed to mitigate their own risks. And the *potential possible for a fetus, has more consideration that the actual person. If you want to talk firearms. Firearms aren’t banned outright. This drug has been completely and utterly denied to a person because of the *potential to crate another human. So if you compare that to firearms, that’s like saying only women can’t be trusted with firearms, even if they have safe measures to keep them at home. Like a gun safe. I live in Australia, we have guns here, I can go and buy a gun, and there’s safety measures I have to abide by. That’s not what’s happening here. That’s not what you’re arguing. It’s problematic to assume that one gender is incapable of mitigating risks, at all. She can prevent herself getting pregnant while on the drug and says she’s child free, never wants kids. The potential for that to fail is still held in higher regard than the actual harm be caused an actual person, not an imaginary person that doesn’t exist (if you want to call a cluster of cells a person, spoiler it’s not). This would be like you going to the doctors and the doctor won’t give you medication to relieve agonising pain to the extent it commonly causes suicidality, and the doctor says, no you just have to suffer in this pain when nothing else is helping, because you might cause a pregnancy in a woman, and you tell he doctor you promise to use protection and that you’re gay and don’t even sleep with women, and he still doesn’t care, because the potential for damage to someone who doesn’t even exist is more important than you and your actual lived existence. There is a medical rule that has caused people who it applies to harm, and those people are speaking out. You aren’t able to imagine or consider their situation. This is an issue in the USA. So using medical advice from other sources doesn’t really apply. This is happening because of the medical issues in that region specifically, the banning of essential health care for women, which is having huge roll on effects.

            • t_jpeg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is okay if there is a non teratogenic alternative that treats the targeted disease. Why risk teratogenicity when you can altogether avoid it?

              • LavaPlanet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are assuming a few things, you’re assuming she hasn’t tried anything else and jumped straight to the deep end. And you’re assuming that it’s ok to say to one group of people they’re incapable of mitigating risks for themselves, and need that to be decided for them. Taking away their autonomy entirely. She’s been to many doctors. She’s tried everything already. This causes people to feel suicidal because of the levels of pain on a frequent basis. And she’s told she just has to live with the pain, her pain is inconsequential in comparison to an imaginary non existent person.