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.
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.
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.
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.
Pharmacists are also licensed professionals. If ANY healthcare worker cannot carry out the core duties of their profession, for whatever reason, in an equal manner regardless of personal belief and/or the identity of the patient, their license should be revoked.
Why do we maintain the licenses of individuals who cannot or will not complete the duties of the job for which they are licensed? To me, that defeats the whole purpose of a licensing system for healthcare workers. It’s not a license to dispense only to people with whom you agree and when you want to do so; it is an assurance on behalf of the community that you will carry out your duties professionally and ethically toward all, without exception.
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.
Or, and hear me out, don’t let them deny medical care based on their religion.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Canadian here…fucking crazy down there…
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
Nah, the kind of people that would build it wouldn’t mind more conservatives to solidify their power
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’m currently watching a handmaid’s tale. I know it’s fictional but my love for Canada has increased while watching the show.
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 :~;
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.
Thanks. I’ll relay this along to her.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It is okay if there is a non teratogenic alternative that treats the targeted disease. Why risk teratogenicity when you can altogether avoid it?
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
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 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?
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.
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
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.
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.
I agree with the points made in this article, but I don’t think they did due diligence in reporting on what doctors or hospitals blacklisted her and why. I’d like to know the reasoning behind why she was denied treatment everywhere locally. I suspect that there’s an interesting story there.
This is a messy story. It has been covered by other publications. Other publications have included additional details. I suspect that what happened may not be so clearly black and white as the story presented by Jezebel.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/10/13/roe-abortions-people-denied-medications-because-of-hypothetical-pregnancies/8194046001/ (archive link because article is paywalled)
Aww, thanks for the links! That’s really nice of you!
You’re welcome.
Wouldn’t contraceptives be an even better protection?
You can’t have birth defects if you’re never conceived *taps head*
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
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/
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.
Sure, but do not recommend is different than will not give.
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!
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
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.
