Anatomy of an Unsafe Abortion

[CarlATHF]

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/anatomy-of-an-unsafe-abortion/

A worthwhile read IMO. She has some other fantastic articles on her blog that I highly recommend.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ppfizenm]

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/anatomy-of-an-unsafe-abortion/

A worthwhile read IMO. She has some other fantastic articles on her blog that I highly recommend.

compelling.

 

[tantacles]

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/anatomy-of-an-unsafe-abortion/

A worthwhile read IMO. She has some other fantastic articles on her blog that I highly recommend.

I'm almost in tears. What a story.

 

[CeeEstee0]

Oh my. Poor girl, I hope she is okay. I echo the words of the urologist.

 

[EBTrailRunner]

Good read. Thanks for the link.

 

[LizzyM]

Deaths of women associated with complications from abortions for 2008 are being investigated under CDC's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2007, the most recent year for which data were available, six women were reported to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortions. No reported deaths were associated with known illegal induced abortions.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6015a1.htm?s_cid=ss6015a1_w

 

[tantacles]

Deaths of women associated with complications from abortions for 2008 are being investigated under CDC's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2007, the most recent year for which data were available, six women were reported to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortions. No reported deaths were associated with known illegal induced abortions.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6015a1.htm?s_cid=ss6015a1_w

So 6/800,000, or about 1/100000 women who receive an abortion, will die as the result of a legal abortion. Not terrible odds. Still better than the chance of surviving childbirth, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[BA11]

So 6/800,000, or about 1/100000 women who receive an abortion, will die as the result of a legal abortion. Not terrible odds. Still better than the chance of surviving childbirth, if I'm not mistaken.

The difference of course being that the vast majority of deaths related to abortions are directly the fault of one or both parties whereas the majority of childbirth complications are natural and often unforseeable. Deaths from abortions don't HAVE to happen, deaths due to childbirth are an unfortunate side effect of the necessity to propagate the species. One has to occur every now and then, the other occurs because we choose to let it.

 

[tantacles]

The difference of course being that the vast majority of deaths related to abortions are directly the fault of one or both parties whereas the majority of childbirth complications are natural and often unforseeable. Deaths from abortions don't HAVE to happen, deaths due to childbirth are an unfortunate side effect of the necessity to propagate the species. One has to occur, the other occurs because we choose to let it.

Does that change the fact that it's generally safer to terminate a pregnancy than to have a child? Because I agree with you; most people who have abortions do indeed choose to have them. That wasn't at all at issue in my comment.

The only point I was trying to make is that the risk of death from generalized abortion is lower than the risk of carrying a fetus to term.

 

[BA11]

My only point was that abortions should be up to the doctor's discretion like the vast majority of minimally invasive medical procedures and shouldnt be given out on demand simply because mommy and daddy can't find out.

 

[tantacles]

My only point was that abortions should be up to the doctor's discretion like the vast majority of minimally invasive medical procedures and shouldnt be given out on demand simply because mommy and daddy can't find out.

Mommy and daddy don't get to make decisions for pregnant Patty when she turns 18, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. ETA: They also might kick her out of the house if they find out she's pregnant, leaving her homeless. Does that change things?

And I have to ask: Why should the doctor be in control? Doctors care for patients; they don't run their lives. And if a physician doesn't feel comfortable terminating a pregnancy, s/he can decline.

 

[BA11]

Mommy and daddy don't get to make decisions for pregnant Patty when she turns 18, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.

And I have to ask: Why should the doctor be in control? Doctors care for patients; they don't run their lives. And if a physician doesn't feel comfortable terminating a pregnancy, s/he can decline.

I wasnt saying they get to make her decisions, I was saying that many people want abortions so friends/family don't find out they got pregnant.

Most doctors require invasive procedures of any kind to have some sort of medical support for justifying the risk however small, with the common exception being being plastic surgery but there is rarely a huge ethical dilemma there and the incidence rate for plastic surgery complications not stemming from trauma are dictated almost solely by the anesthesia complication rate.

 

[BA11]

They also might kick her out of the house if they find out she's pregnant, leaving her homeless. Does that change things?

No, seeing as it is medically irrelevant.

 

[Schizotypy]

For what it's worth, the patient lived.

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/imagine-if-all-the-money-spent-on-fighting-abortion/

 

[tantacles]

I wasnt saying they get to make her decisions, I was saying that many people want abortions so friends/family don't find out they got pregnant.

Most doctors require invasive procedures of any kind to have some sort of medical support for justifying the risk however small, with the common exception being being plastic surgery but there is rarely a huge ethical dilemma there and the incidence rate for plastic surgery complications not stemming from trauma are dictated almost solely by the anesthesia complication rate.

I'm not seeing the ethical dilemma as medically relevant, though. If your concern is the morality of abortion, fine. You win. Abortions are immoral.

If you believe, however, that abortions are an acceptable way to terminate a pregnancy, then I'm a bit confused. Most people have abortions because they don't want to have a baby.

No, seeing as it is medically irrelevant.

Do you think the patient's care will be as good when she's homeless? What about her child's? Does a homeless person generally have better access to health care than someone living with her family?

 

[ppfizenm]

I wasnt saying they get to make her decisions, I was saying that many people want abortions so friends/family don't find out they got pregnant.

Most doctors require invasive procedures of any kind to have some sort of medical support for justifying the risk however small, with the common exception being being plastic surgery but there is rarely a huge ethical dilemma there and the incidence rate for plastic surgery complications not stemming from trauma are dictated almost solely by the anesthesia complication rate.

This is just ridiculous. A small percentage at best fall into this category. I would venture a guess that most women seek abortions because they don't want and/or cannot care for a child.

 

[BA11]

This is just ridiculous. A small percentage at best fall into this category.

The social reprocussions and the unwillingness/inability to care for a child are the by far the two biggest reasons women report for having abortions. Every other reason is so small they are barely statistically relevant.

I would venture a guess that most women seek abortions because they don't want and/or cannot care for a child.

And studies have shown that a large number of these women regret their decision later in life. I also saw a study once in a pshycology textbook that showed a correlation between mental illness, depression and suicide rate among women who had abortions in their younger years. The rate of depression in women over 35 who have had abortions is especially alarming.

 

[tantacles]

And studies have shown that a large number of these women regret their decision later in life. I also saw a study once in a pshycology textbook that showed a correlation between mental illness, depression and suicide rate among women who had abortions in their younger years. The rate of depression in women over 35 who have had abortions is especially alarming.

Correlation does not imply causation, and regret by some is not a good reason to bar an important procedure from all.

 

[BA11]

I'm not seeing the ethical dilemma as medically relevant, though. If your concern is the morality of abortion, fine. You win. Abortions are immoral.

I have moral issues with it but I'm not going to go so far as to say it is outright immoral, especially not in every instance. It's a very difficult issue to paint with one brush.

If you believe, however, that abortions are an acceptable way to terminate a pregnancy, then I'm a bit confused. Most people have abortions because they don't want to have a baby.

I believe the mother's safety is always the first priority until the baby is actually born, so yes I believe abortions are appropriate when this issue comes up. I do have issues with women who gets abortions just to prevent the birth of a child or because they are scared, especially considering the thousands of couples who want kids and can't have them but would provide fantastic homes. Now, our foster care system is an entirely different issue.

Do you think the patient's care will be as good when she's homeless? What about her child's? Does a homeless person generally have better access to health care than someone living with her family?

I think it's a slippery slope to start taking into account the decisions of illogical parents after the fact. If a parent is willing to throw their kids life into the crapper because they got pregnant, that is not an issue for the doctor to deal with.

 

[BA11]

Correlation does not imply causation, and regret by some is not a good reason to bar an important procedure from all.

Agreed, I just found the strong correlation interesting.

 

[ppfizenm]

The social reprocussions and the unwillingness/inability to care for a child are the by far the two biggest reasons women report for having abortions. Every other reason is so small they are barely statistically relevant.

wrong

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

very low numbers of women cited social repercussions as a reason for having an abortion.

 

[kduck]

wrong

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

very low numbers of women cited social repercussions as a reason for having an abortion.

data ftw!

 

[BA11]

wrong

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

very low numbers of women cited social repercussions as a reason for having an abortion.

I would say that worrying about how having a baby would change your life would fall under social reason for having an abortion. Certainly not as "noble" as not having one due to finances. I also never argued that being unprepared for a child in other ways wasnt the leading cause.

 

[kduck]

I would say that worrying about how having a baby would change your life would fall under social reason for having an abortion. Certainly not as "noble" as not having one due to finances. I also never argued that being unprepared for a child in other ways wasnt the leading cause.

Really? Educational and career attainment concerns fall under "social reasons?" It's not like everyone is worried that they won't be able to go out and party on Friday nights anymore...

 

[Jennet]

The article was like watching Lifetime. What exactly is the point of posting it here? I'm not sure how many of the pre-meds are performing unsafe abortions at this point in their careers. I feel like politically charged material should go in the Lounge.

Also, didn't we JUST do this whole abortion thing? The anti-choice crowd is strong on SDN...

 

[ppfizenm]

I would say that worrying about how having a baby would change your life would fall under social reason for having an abortion. Certainly not as "noble" as not having one due to finances. I also never argued that being unprepared for a child in other ways wasnt the leading cause.

"doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant" is the category that you almost word for word cited above. I wouldn't say worrying about how having a baby would change you life fits into this category. The researchers saw it as distinct enough to separate the two and I see very little correlation between the two. In tv/movies the "omg I don't want anyone to know" is standard but that isn't the real world. Also keep in that the women could pick more than one option from this list and on average picked three.

 

[BA11]

Really? Educational and career attainment concerns fall under "social reasons?" It's not like everyone is worried that they won't be able to go out and party on Friday nights anymore...

True, but I'm also sure many reporting they arent ready to have one simply can't or won't admit they were just scared or afraid of what others would think. In the end I think true motives and reported motives will often be different as only some are honest enough with the poll or with themselves. It's easier to cope with something like that if you convince yourself of a reason why you HAVE to do it instead of just wanting to.

 

[BA11]

The article was like watching Lifetime. What exactly is the point of posting it here? I'm not sure how many of the pre-meds are performing unsafe abortions at this point in their careers. I feel like politically charged material should go in the Lounge.

Also, didn't we JUST do this whole abortion thing? The anti-choice crowd is strong on SDN...

Being anti-choice and anti-abortion is not the same thing. Saying one doesnt believe we should have out abortions like cards for strippers in Vegas doesnt mean they are against anyone ever getting an abortion.

Think about how many other prodecures every doctor alive considers "anti-choice". We don't typically let people get their legs amputated just for kicks.

 

[Jennet]

Being anti-choice and anti-abortion is not the same thing. Saying one doesnt believe we should have out abortions like cards for strippers in Vegas doesnt mean they are against anyone ever getting an abortion.

Think about how many other prodecures every doctor alive considers "anti-choice". We don't typically let people get their legs amputated just for kicks.

So you believe in limiting the availability of abortions and, based on your earlier comments, for people who are worried about social stigma? That's about as anti-choice as it gets. It isn't your choice to make and therefore the limiting of someone's choice is essentially anti-choice. Anti anyone's choice at anytime for any reason. If you take pennace and the eucharist at St. Mary's are you not Catholic? Even if you miss a few Sundays?

 

[ppfizenm]

True, but I'm also sure many reporting they arent ready to have one simply can't or won't admit they were just scared or afraid of what others would think. In the end I think true motives and reported motives will often be different as only some are honest enough with the poll or with themselves. It's easier to cope with something like that if you convince yourself of a reason why you HAVE to do it instead of just wanting to.

No was forcing these women to take this survey. I'd imagine that therefore only a very small percentage were being dishonest.

 

[kduck]

True, but I'm also sure many reporting they arent ready to have one simply can't or won't admit they were just scared or afraid of what others would think. In the end I think true motives and reported motives will often be different as only some are honest enough with the poll or with themselves. It's easier to cope with something like that if you convince yourself of a reason why you HAVE to do it instead of just wanting to.

I don't think anyone is fooling themselves that they "have" to do it. People who have abortions choose it knowing that they could have had the baby, but don't want to because they know they either 1) won't be able to provide appropriately for the baby or 2) accurately believe that education and career development will be much more difficult once parenthood happens. This may come as a shock to you, but having a baby actually can derail major life goals - it's not just something women say will happen to "justify" abortions.

 

[kduck]

No was forcing these women to take this survey. I'd imagine that therefore only a very small percentage were being dishonest.

+1. Researchers know about social desirability bias and account for it in their analysis, generally.

 

[BA11]

So you believe in limiting the availability of abortions and, based on your earlier comments, for people who are worried about social stigma? That's about as anti-choice as it gets. It isn't your choice to make and therefore the limiting of someone's choice is essentially anti-choice. Anti anyone's choice at anytime for any reason. If you take pennace and the eucharist at St. Mary's are you not Catholic? Even if you miss a few Sundays?

I admitted I'm anti-choice, but I'm not a pro-life NEVER have an abortion fundamentalist either. My moral compass on this issue isnt giuded by the belief that God will smite me if I'm pro-choice.

 

[NickNaylor]

Mommy and daddy don't get to make decisions for pregnant Patty when she turns 18, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. ETA: They also might kick her out of the house if they find out she's pregnant, leaving her homeless. Does that change things?

And I have to ask: Why should the doctor be in control? Doctors care for patients; they don't run their lives. And if a physician doesn't feel comfortable terminating a pregnancy, s/he can decline.

Why should the patient be able to unilaterally dictate what the doctor must do to him/her when there is no medical indication to do so? I have yet to hear a convincing response to this question.

 

[tantacles]

Why should the patient be able to unilaterally dictate what the doctor must do to him/her when there is no medical indication to do so? I have yet to hear a convincing response to this question.

We agree on this. As I mentioned, I think individual providers should be allowed to choose whether they wish to provide abortions on an individual basis. Some practitioners will likely feel that all abortions, regardless of reason, are justified. Some will feel that abortions only in cases of rape or incest are justified. Doctors are able to decline care if they don't think it's justified. In fact, there are centers that perform no abortions at all.

The text you quoted was in response to BA11's assertion that abortions shouldn't be available "on demand." No one here is arguing that a physician has to perform a procedure that isn't medically indicated. At least, I don't THINK anyone is. What BA11 is talking about is making abortions widely unavailable for people, not telling individual physicians what they must do in cases of intended termination.

 

[freckolis]

Why should the patient be able to unilaterally dictate what the doctor must do to him/her when there is no medical indication to do so? I have yet to hear a convincing response to this question.

I generally don't have enough life experience to really have solid reasons to back up how I feel about this whole issue. tantacles brought up the parents kicking their child out for being pregnant, and while that's something I can't ever picture my parents doing, you never know. Being a girl I'd like to think that in that situation I wouldn't put myself first (i.e. choosing my family's opinion over keeping the child and suffering the consequences.)

When it's all said and done, I think an abortion is between the patient, how the patient feels before compared to the after effects, and the doctor.

IMO a perfect system would be doctors who either agree to performing abortions or don't with no fuzzy area in between. Abortion is more than a simple procedure, and while the doctor has to live with choosing to perform them... that's nothing compared to how a decision will follow that said patient for the rest of their life.

 

[BA11]

We agree on this. As I mentioned, I think individual providers should be allowed to choose whether they wish to provide abortions on an individual basis. Some practitioners will likely feel that all abortions, regardless of reason, are justified. Some will feel that abortions only in cases of rape or incest are justified. Doctors are able to decline care if they don't think it's justified. In fact, there are centers that perform no abortions at all.

The text you quoted was in response to BA11's assertion that abortions shouldn't be available "on demand." No one here is arguing that a physician has to perform a procedure that isn't medically indicated. At least, I don't THINK anyone is. What BA11 is talking about is making abortions widely unavailable for people, not telling individual physicians what they must do in cases of intended termination.

I'm saying that I have somewhat of moral issue with having an abortion because you want one instead of needing one. I have no issue with getting one if the mother's safety is at risk or in the rare cases of rape or incest. Abortion SHOULD be legal, but I don't believe it's something a physician should be allowed to perform without any reasoning other than "I can't have one right now".

 

[kduck]

Why should the patient be able to unilaterally dictate what the doctor must do to him/her when there is no medical indication to do so? I have yet to hear a convincing response to this question.

I guess I believe the physician has a responsibility to consider all of the effects that treatment/lack of treatment will have on the patient, not just the "medical" ones. If having a baby will cause a currently self-sufficient woman to go on welfare or apply for food stamps, I think that is a negative outcome. If having a baby means that a woman will have to alter career or education plans to have enough time to care for a child, and she is unhappy about this development, I consider that a negative outcome.

Should all doctors be forced to perform abortions if the situation isn't life/death? I don't think so. But I do think that physicians shouldn't be pressured into not performing the procedure because it is unpopular, and I believe that as long as there are willing physicians, women should be able to dictate what happens to their bodies.

 

[NickNaylor]

We agree on this. As I mentioned, I think individual providers should be allowed to choose whether they wish to provide abortions on an individual basis. Some practitioners will likely feel that all abortions, regardless of reason, are justified. Some will feel that abortions only in cases of rape or incest are justified. Doctors are able to decline care if they don't think it's justified. In fact, there are centers that perform no abortions at all.

The text you quoted was in response to BA11's assertion that abortions shouldn't be available "on demand." No one here is arguing that a physician has to perform a procedure that isn't medically indicated. At least, I don't THINK anyone is. What BA11 is talking about is making abortions widely unavailable for people, not telling individual physicians what they must do in cases of intended termination.

You would be surprised. There seem to be a few people that I've talked with in the context of our ethics course that balk at the idea that the physician might have some idea of autonomy and is himself a moral agent.

I apologize for taking your response out of context.

 

[NickNaylor]

I guess I believe the physician has a responsibility to consider all of the effects that treatment/lack of treatment will have on the patient, not just the "medical" ones. If having a baby will cause a currently self-sufficient woman to go on welfare or apply for food stamps, I think that is a negative outcome. If having a baby means that a woman will have to alter career or education plans to have enough time to care for a child, and she is unhappy about this development, I consider that a negative outcome.

Should all doctors be forced to perform abortions if the situation isn't life/death? I don't think so. But I do think that physicians shouldn't be pressured into not performing the procedure because it is unpopular, and I believe that as long as there are willing physicians, women should be able to dictate what happens to their bodies.

Then you and I have irreconcilable differences in our conception of health I suppose. I don't consider convenience and general happiness as goals of the healthcare provider, and "treating" someone's inconvenience or mistake is a difficult argument to make.

As a separate example, many women would probably be happier with DD breasts. Does that mean plastic surgeons are obligated to perform breast augmentations? What if the patient has such low self-esteem that she has threatened suicide if she doesn't receive a breast augmentation? What if being more attractive will further her career (e.g., she's an actor, model, etc.)? Is the surgeon at fault for refusing cosmetic cases and only working on reconstructive cases?

 

[Gut Shot]

And studies have shown that a large number of these women regret their decision later in life. I also saw a study once in a pshycology textbook that showed a correlation between mental illness, depression and suicide rate among women who had abortions in their younger years. The rate of depression in women over 35 who have had abortions is especially alarming.

And this one time, at band camp...

You should read the Executive Summary of the APA's 2008 Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion.

Oh hell, I'll just give you the gist of it:

The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.

Across studies, prior mental health emerged as the strongest predictor of postabortion mental health. Many of these same factors also predict negative psychological reactions to other types of stressful life events, including childbirth, and, hence, are not uniquely predictive of psychological responses following abortion.

 

[Gut Shot]

wrong

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

very low numbers of women cited social repercussions as a reason for having an abortion.

Yeah, 1996 called, it wants its website back.

Seriously, you will have to forgive any of us (myself included) for casting a skeptical eye at psycho-social information interpreted by a Baptist space physicist with a rather blatant agenda (and a penchant for writing letters to editors).

 

[kduck]

Then you and I have irreconcilable differences in our conception of health I suppose. I don't consider convenience and general happiness as goals of the healthcare provider, and "treating" someone's inconvenience or mistake is a difficult argument to make.

As a separate example, many women would probably be happier with DD breasts. Does that mean plastic surgeons are obligated to perform breast augmentations? What if the patient has such low self-esteem that she has threatened suicide if she doesn't receive a breast augmentation? What if being more attractive will further her career (e.g., she's an actor, model, etc.)? Is the surgeon at fault for refusing cosmetic cases and only working on reconstructive cases?

Didn't you read the part of my post where I said that doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions? It's right below the part you bolded. However, along this vein, do you believe that pharmacists who don't believe in birth control should be forced to provide it? Contraception or Plan B aren't medically "necessary" as not having them doesn't necessarily result in disease. Both those medications exist for "convenience and mistakes," as you say.

As an aside, I don't really consider pushing an individual or family into food insecurity and other financial difficulties a matter of "convenience."

 

[NickNaylor]

Didn't you read the part of my post where I said that doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions? It's right below the part you bolded. However, along this vein, do you believe that pharmacists who don't believe in birth control should be forced to provide it? Contraception or Plan B aren't medically "necessary" as not having them doesn't necessarily result in disease. Both those medications exist for "convenience and mistakes," as you say.

As an aside, I don't really consider pushing an individual or family into food insecurity and other financial difficulties a matter of "convenience."

I think pharmacists have less of a legitimate argument for conscientious objection: their job it to minimize the chance of the chance of negative drug interactions, not prescribe medications.

Pregnancy isn't like cancer: it doesn't spontaneously happen without warning. Therefore "pushing an individual or family into food insecurity and other financial difficulties" is usually a direct result of their own actions - expected or not. And I know, people can get pregnant despite "correctly" (and I use that word loosely) using birth control, but these are a minority of elective cases.

 

[Sephiroth]

Then you and I have irreconcilable differences in our conception of health I suppose. I don't consider convenience and general happiness as goals of the healthcare provider, and "treating" someone's inconvenience or mistake is a difficult argument to make.

As a separate example, many women would probably be happier with DD breasts. Does that mean plastic surgeons are obligated to perform breast augmentations? What if the patient has such low self-esteem that she has threatened suicide if she doesn't receive a breast augmentation? What if being more attractive will further her career (e.g., she's an actor, model, etc.)? Is the surgeon at fault for refusing cosmetic cases and only working on reconstructive cases?

I think pharmacists have less of a legitimate argument for conscientious objection: their job it to minimize the chance of the chance of negative drug interactions, not prescribe medications.

Pregnancy isn't like cancer: it doesn't spontaneously happen without warning. Therefore "pushing an individual or family into food insecurity and other financial difficulties" is usually a direct result of their own actions - expected or not. And I know, people can get pregnant despite "correctly" (and I use that word loosely) using birth control, but these are a minority of elective cases.

Good lord, are we doing this again? You've already made clear you will tip toe around your actual reason for opposing abortion, yet keep coming back to this line of blaming the patient for their poor decisions. Judge all you want on a personal level, but as a professional that is not what you are there to do. As I've already pointed out in other threads, if a patient injures themselves by doing stupid **** they obviously shouldn't have been doing, the doctor is there to treat them, not to say they shouldn't have been doing dumb **** so I'm not going to help you. We've been through examples already to illustrate this point, so I won't go over them again.
Your right about pharmacists. I don't think they have any argument there. Their job is to fill prescriptions and check for contraindications. If they have an issue with this, they should get another job. It is not the same as abortions because being an abortion provider is hardly standard for all doctors.

 

[tantacles]

Good lord, are we doing this again? You've already made clear you will tip toe around your actual reason for opposing abortion, yet keep coming back to this line of blaming the patient for their poor decisions. Judge all you want on a personal level, but as a professional that is not what you are there to do. As I've already pointed out in other threads, if a patient injures themselves by doing stupid **** they obviously shouldn't have been doing, the doctor is there to treat them, not to say they shouldn't have been doing dumb **** so I'm not going to help you. We've been through examples already to illustrate this point, so I won't go over them again.
Your right, a pharmacist's job is not to prescribe medication - it is to fill prescriptions while checking for contraindications. If they are going to have objections to doing this, they shouldn't be a pharmacist. (Note: this is not the same as a doctor providing abortions because being an abortion provider is hardly standard for all doctors).

You just reiterated his point; he essentially said that pharmacists don't have as much standing to decline people access to birth control as they are intermediaries in the process, not that they shouldn't provide it.

 

[Sephiroth]

You just reiterated his point; he essentially said that pharmacists don't have as much standing to decline people access to birth control as they are intermediaries in the process, not that they shouldn't provide it.

damn, u ninja'd me edit. i realized that the second i clicked submit and fixed it. Thanks for preserving my poor reading skills

 

[Jennet]

Good lord, are we doing this again? You've already made clear you will tip toe around your actual reason for opposing abortion, yet keep coming back to this line of blaming the patient for their poor decisions. Judge all you want on a personal level, but as a professional that is not what you are there to do. As I've already pointed out in other threads, if a patient injures themselves by doing stupid **** they obviously shouldn't have been doing, the doctor is there to treat them, not to say they shouldn't have been doing dumb **** so I'm not going to help you. We've been through examples already to illustrate this point, so I won't go over them again.
Your right about pharmacists. I don't think they have any argument there. Their job is to fill prescriptions and check for contraindications. If they have an issue with this, they should get another job. It is not the same as abortions because being an abortion provider is hardly standard for all doctors.

I completely agree about "treating stupid ****". I firmly believe that providers of care have a duty to treat patients and not their choices. You treat the heart disease and hope the patient listens to you about eating better and exercise. The moment a physician begins to assign blame, the relationship is over. Your patient is not there to be blamed, badgered, or judged; they are there to be treated.

I feel the same way with abortions. Unless medically relevant, judgement should be completely removed from the equation. It is not your place to make choices for someone outside of medical care or belittle those they have made.

In the words of Dr. Cox, "Smokers, drinkers, druggies, fatties, whatever."

 

[NickNaylor]

I completely agree about "treating stupid ****". I firmly believe that providers of care have a duty to treat patients and not their choices. You treat the heart disease and hope the patient listens to you about eating better and exercise. The moment a physician begins to assign blame, the relationship is over. Your patient is not there to be blamed, badgered, or judged; they are there to be treated.

I feel the same way with abortions. Unless medically relevant, judgement should be completely removed from the equation. It is not your place to make choices for someone outside of medical care or belittle those they have made.

In the words of Dr. Cox, "Smokers, drinkers, druggies, fatties, whatever."

Indeed it isn't my place: that's why a person seeking an abortion is more than welcome to find a provider that will provide the service she wants.

 

[Jennet]

Indeed it isn't my place: that's why a person seeking an abortion is more than welcome to find a provider that will provide the service she wants.

But there is a negative connotation to that sentiment which I dislike. She is free to find a provider but you also refuse to provide service. It still seems condescending and a judgement based on the physician's personal choice rather than the patient's. As an athletic cardiovascular surgeon, you would not be allowed to turn down a patient based on the fact that they never exercised. It is placing your standards upon someone else.

I also realize there is not an easy solution based on the moral implications of the argument. Physicians deserve the right to refuse service and to maintain their ethical standards. I just wish the standards weren't influenced by a sense of lofty religious integrity.