If a girl is raped and refused emer contraceptives: Violation of Rights?

[Lokhtar]

Well there is no book or philosophy attached to non religion so it can't really make anyone do anything.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Abider]

You know that i can flip that around as well .....""All sorts of Bad people do bad things religious or not. But if you want a good person to do a bad thing, there's nothing quite like anti-religion to accomplish it. "" .. And the bad thing in abortion cases would be not saving an embryo's life (a human life).






Huh!? So one billion people are straightforward stupid and has it all wrong

Egos of SDN never fails!

Look, you're going to heaven right? And I'm not. Because I haven't taken the Jesus as my savior, mainly because I have no idea what that even means, but that besides the point. How about you do the Jesus like thing and forgive me....or pity me for my eternity on the Lake of Fire.

But here's the thing puppy face. What would you do in the situation the OP proposes? You're the only ED doc on duty in a rural area and your patient has been raped and is requesting the treatment we've been discussing. What's your call?

 

[deleted103644]

Not caught up on the various taunts that are going back and forth here, but there's a simple answer to the original question:

If you are morally opposed to providing emergency contraception, you are still ethically obligated to provide a referral to a provider who does.

What the patient does is not your choice and it is not your right to restrict what they do, only what you do.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Not caught up on the various taunts that are going back and forth here, but there's a simple answer to the original question:

If you are morally opposed to providing emergency contraception, you are still ethically obligated to provide a referral to a provider who does.

What the patient does is not your choice and it is not your right to restrict what they do, only what you do.

Amen!

 

[Abider]

Not caught up on the various taunts that are going back and forth here, but there's a simple answer to the original question:

If you are morally opposed to providing emergency contraception, you are still ethically obligated to provide a referral to a provider who does.

What the patient does is not your choice and it is not your right to restrict what they do, only what you do.

You're right in theory. But in real life many things could obstruct the process of a referral and timely treatment that wouldn't at all be remote or unrealistic. And so a choice really is a choice with potential consequences.

These aren't frivolous taunts. The OP poses a brilliant question. One that doesn't give anyone a free-ride to good morality by claiming a certain principle. It's my goal to see that question answered honestly for the scrutiny of peers.

 

[gasknight]

Not caught up on the various taunts that are going back and forth here, but there's a simple answer to the original question:

If you are morally opposed to providing emergency contraception, you are still ethically obligated to provide a referral to a provider who does.

What the patient does is not your choice and it is not your right to restrict what they do, only what you do.

I don't see a problem here.

Yes Specter, Amen indeed.

 

[gasknight]

It's my goal to see that question answered honestly for the scrutiny of peers.

I think you've witnessed the honest answer, & you've applied your fair share of scrutiny.

The point remains: a physician is not required to issue a treatment that he/she sees as unethical or immoral (whatever you'd like to call it).

 

[deleted103644]

You're right in theory. But in real life many things could obstruct the process of a referral and timely treatment that wouldn't at all be remote or unrealistic. And so a choice really is a choice with potential consequences.

These aren't frivolous taunts. The OP poses a brilliant question. One that doesn't give anyone a free-ride to good morality by claiming a certain principle. It's my goal to see that question answered honestly for the scrutiny of peers.

The burden here is on the person denying the legal service.

You need to have a referral location at hand that can be available within an appropriate timeline.

If no providers in your area are willing to provide emergency contraception, you need to have a place to refer people for medical abortions.

Again, regardless of your own moral principles, this is your duty under professional ethics.

This is what the patient wants, it is legal, and if you are not willing to provide it you must be able to refer them to someone who will.

 

[batch5000]

I think it would be awesome if women had an abort button. And when they pressed it, the fetus would come out of their vagina in an ejection seat with a little parachute.

I am hoping that this will be the future of abortion technology. What advancements would you guys like to see in the field of abortion?

 

[deleted103644]

I think it would be awesome if women had an abort button. And when they pressed it, the fetus would come out of their vagina in an ejection seat with a little parachute.

I am hoping that this will be the future of abortion technology. What advancements would you guys like to see in the field of abortion?

Retroactive abortion.

The ability to go back in time to abort commenters before they grow up to say something as ridiculously stupid as what you just said.

 

[gasknight]

Retroactive abortion.

The ability to go back in time to abort commenters before they grow up to say something as ridiculously stupid as what you just said.

Such discrimination against trolls within the womb would be a travesty.

 

[gasknight]

The burden here is on the person denying the legal service.

You need to have a referral location at hand that can be available within an appropriate timeline.

If no providers in your area are willing to provide emergency contraception, you need to have a place to refer people for medical abortions.

Again, regardless of your own moral principles, this is your duty under professional ethics.

This is what the patient wants, it is legal, and if you are not willing to provide it you must be able to refer them to someone who will.

Okay. CVS or Walgreens?

 

[batch5000]

I think that the burden is on the fetus to prove that it shouldn't be aborted.

 

[dr zaius]

You know that i can flip that around as well .....""All sorts of Bad people do bad things religious or not. But if you want a good person to do a bad thing, there's nothing quite like anti-religion to accomplish it. "" .. And the bad thing in abortion cases would be not saving an embryo's life (a human life).






Huh!? So one billion people are straightforward stupid and has it all wrong

Egos of SDN never fails!

The things you have said in this thread are so incredibly useless that they are worse than the comments I have made-- and I am making intentionally bad comments out of boredom. And posting Hand-Job Grover. As a matter of fact, Hand-Job Grover has given an infinitely greater amount of meaningful contribution to this thread compared to you.

PS- You're terrible.

 

[MedSensation]

Well there is no book or philosophy attached to non religion so it can't really make anyone do anything.

And who said that religious people "are made to do things" ? ..... Believe it or not , most people (me included) have their (morals, ethics and what's right and wrong) already set ... If those are represented in one of the religions then you might as well call yourself religious. Meanwhile you are always discussing (morals, ethics and what's right and wrong) and when you become convinced that something is not right you switch to somethingelse or drop it all.

So that "religious people are made to do things" is a foolishly ridiculous generalization.

Look, you're going to heaven right? And I'm not. Because I haven't taken the Jesus as my savior, mainly because I have no idea what that even means, but that besides the point. How about you do the Jesus like thing and forgive me....or pity me for my eternity on the Lake of Fire.

But here's the thing puppy face. What would you do in the situation the OP proposes? You're the only ED doc on duty in a rural area and your patient has been raped and is requesting the treatment we've been discussing. What's your call?

If you weren't too ignorant and busy bashing the beliefs of others just because they are not in line with yours ... then you would have had noticed that i already gave my thoughts earlier on these issues.

Not caught up on the various taunts that are going back and forth here, but there's a simple answer to the original question:

If you are morally opposed to providing emergency contraception, you are still ethically obligated to provide a referral to a provider who does.

What the patient does is not your choice and it is not your right to restrict what they do, only what you do.

Amen. Period.

I think that the burden is on the fetus to prove that it shouldn't be aborted.

The things you have said in this thread are so incredibly useless that they are worse than the comments I have made-- and I am making intentionally bad comments out of boredom. And posting Hand-Job Grover. As a matter of fact, Hand-Job Grover has given an infinitely greater amount of meaningful contribution to this thread compared to you.


PS- You're terrible.

"Egos of SDN never fails!"

PS- Doctoring your nickname says pretty much everything one need to know about you kiddo.

 

[Lokhtar]

And who said that religious people "are made to do things" ? ..... Believe it or not , most people (me included) have their (morals, ethics and what's right and wrong) already set ... If those are represented in one of the religions then you might as well call yourself religious. Meanwhile you are always discussing (morals, ethics and what's right and wrong) and when you become convinced that something is not right you switch to somethingelse or drop it all.

So that "religious people are made to do things" is a foolishly ridiculous generalization.

I just said that there is a philosophy behind a religion, usually an authoritative text or a person who spells out in varying levels of detail how one should live their life and what one can and cannot do. Whereas if you do not believe in religion, there is no authoritative text to fall back on.

Secondly, clearly people oppose certain things due to their religious beliefs - people quote their religion to be for or against all sorts of social, political and moral issues. To deny that a child raised in a religious household is much more likely to believe certain things, based on what he or she feels is what their God wants them to believe, is really not being honest.

 

[dr zaius]

Are you claiming that people develop their morals and then find a religion that matches? If so I advise you to come down south where people are force fed religion from birth. I'd even wager that a better model would be that most are given a default set of morals based on whatever religion they are born into, with these morals being edited down the road.

I've been using this handle on different forums for nearly a decade, and long before I even thought about going to medical school, Mr. MedSensation .

 

[gasknight]

Are you claiming that people develop their morals and then find a religion that matches? If so I advise you to come down south where people are force fed religion from birth. I'd even wager that a better model would be that most are given a default set of morals based on whatever religion they are born into, with these morals being edited down the road.

I've been using this handle on different forums for nearly a decade, and long before I even thought about going to medical school, Mr. MedSensation .

I think - and there is a high chance I'm mistaken, especially after the incest debacle - that MedSensation is asserting that morality and ethics are based on a set of objective principles that transcend all religions, but are generally highlighted and expounded on by the major religions.

The Natural, or moral, Law.

 

[High Roller]

So heres an interesting offshoot. Real case in my hometown.

So I come from a state where a 'conscious clause' for pharmacists was recently passed. Turns out this pharmacist at the Walgreens in town was refusing to fill birth control scripts for patients. Said he's a devout catholic or some chit, and as such, it goes against his principals. Gave patients directions to the nearest Walgreens, about 20 miles out.

So the company says, fine...you don't have to fill these scripts under state law, but we're gonna make you work part time and mostly during nights because too many patients have brought complaints. Guy turns around and has now filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination, and that he's protected by the law. Brought up a real big stir at the time. Most letters written into the town paper called this guy a nutcase who should learn to do his job. A few thought the guy was getting the shaft. Regardless, I wonder what this prick was thinking when he decided he wanted to be a pharmacist.

 

[Abider]

Are you claiming that people develop their morals and then find a religion that matches? If so I advise you to come down south where people are force fed religion from birth. I'd even wager that a better model would be that most are given a default set of morals based on whatever religion they are born into, with these morals being edited down the road.

I've been using this handle on different forums for nearly a decade, and long before I even thought about going to medical school, Mr. MedSensation .

Yeah man. As someone raised in the bible beatin south where getting asked "are you saved brother" is as easy as "how ya doin," I have to say the sensitivity displayed by religious people having their assumptions questioned is amusing. When to even be an agnostic is to be considered vile and unsavory. Cry me the godd@mn Mississippi River before I bat an eye of sympathy.

So heres an interesting offshoot. Real case in my hometown.

So I come from a state where a 'conscious clause' for pharmacists was recently passed. Turns out this pharmacist at the Walgreens in town was refusing to fill birth control scripts for patients. Said he's a devout catholic or some chit, and as such, it goes against his principals. Gave patients directions to the nearest Walgreens, about 20 miles out.

So the company says, fine...you don't have to fill these scripts under state law, but we're gonna make you work part time and mostly during nights because too many patients have brought complaints. Guy turns around and has now filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination, and that he's protected by the law. Brought up a real big stir at the time. Most letters written into the town paper called this guy a nutcase who should learn to do his job. A few thought the guy was getting the shaft. Regardless, it baffles me wondering what this prick was thinking when he decided he wanted to be a pharmacist.

This is a perfect extension of the ethics dilemma posed by the OP. And points to consequences and the real effect of the culture wars taking place around us.

I wonder at the demur and bashful nature with which those that haven't picked a side can just sort of blush and pretend it isn't real and isn't happening.

 

[deleted103644]

So heres an interesting offshoot. Real case in my hometown.

So I come from a state where a 'conscience clause' for pharmacists was recently passed. Turns out this pharmacist at the Walgreens in town was refusing to fill birth control scripts for patients. Said he's a devout catholic or some chit, and as such, it goes against his principles. Gave patients directions to the nearest Walgreens, about 20 miles out.

Sorry, those were just particularly egregious mistakes.

As for the guy, the company has a right to do whatever it wants if he is not performing satisfactorily. I don't think a person whose religion prohibits them from doing a certain job has a right to that job, but it is an interesting question.

 

[MedSensation]

Secondly, clearly people oppose certain things due to their religious beliefs - people quote their religion to be for or against all sorts of social, political and moral issues. To deny that a child raised in a religious household is much more likely to believe certain things, based on what he or she feels is what their God wants them to believe, is really not being honest.

Are you claiming that people develop their morals and then find a religion that matches? If so I advise you to come down south where people are force fed religion from birth. I'd even wager that a better model would be that most are given a default set of morals based on whatever religion they are born into, with these morals being edited down the road.

You are being force fed things whether you are raised in a religious household or not ..... If you are raised up in a non religious household then chances are you won't be a monk or a bearded mullah ..... So to play the Household/Community card on the religious is not really accurate.

Regardless of your upbringing , you should reach a certain age ,probably 15 (maybe earlier/later) where you start questioning things and sort of find your own path "free will".
If you can't motivate why you think the way you do with something else rather than (god/parents/community told you so) then you are just stupid .... If your motivation is the same as god's then i don't really see the problem in being religious.

I just said that there is a philosophy behind a religion, usually an authoritative text or a person who spells out in varying levels of detail how one should live their life and what one can and cannot do. Whereas if you do not believe in religion, there is no authoritative text to fall back on.

What ??? So if i'm not stealing today then it's because of that authoritative text or person ?? Not because i think it's a wrong?? And if these didn't exist then i would go wild ?? WOW.

Vegetarians today have that lifestyle because they think it's the right thing to do .... In other scenario , let's suppose that there were a vegetarianism god or holybook 500 years ago telling them to do that .... Then it's like you are telling vegetarians today that you are force fed doing that because "vegetarianism god" told you so ....What a total rubbish.




I get the impression that some here have no problem performing abortions in general (as of pregnancies that resulted from consensual sex) ... In that case, it looks like we are going in circles and we have different opinions on the basic situation of abortion without it being complicated by a rape.

If you have been fooling around then there is a risk of getting pregnant and if you are not mature enough to decide whether you want a kid or not then you shouldn't be fooling around. And whether you like it or not that embyo is a human-being like you in a couple of months time.

Pregnancy is "self-inflicted" , you can't get pregnant without you being involved (again the normal consensual sex .... no rape , no twisted cult stuff as we can't agree on the basics ) ...........And in more serious situations , how many patients are dying waiting for a liver transplant being denied on the basis of alcoholism ?

And don't even get me started on gender equality and sex-selective abortions! (although i'm sure i will if this spiral were to continue).