Rape Victim Denied Contraceptives

[Nyoibo]

Maybe it's me but it seems a lot like people are expecting the doctors to put their own personal beliefs aside for others. But would they themselves do the same?

Which is why it really DOES turn into a belief match - why is one person obligated to put his or her beliefs second for someone else, while that other person is not?

Why should the other person's beliefs be rated higher?

Yes, yes the doctor should, because they chose a profession where they are required to provide a level of care that obviously they are not prepared to provide, and yes I would and have done the same.

The Hippocratic Oath - an oath that doctors are sworn to as part of their admission to practice medicine - states, "First, do no harm."

Actually, no it doesn't state that at least not in the more modern version, however it does state

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required"

"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."


and also unfortunately in the US doctors are not required to swear the hippocratic oath.

[BlaqueKatt]

and also unfortunately in the US doctors are not required to swear the hippocratic oath.

1. In 1993, 98% of schools administered some form of the Oath.

it is not "required", but it is administered nonetheless.....

"The Oath, a set of ethical principles derived from the writings of the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, has been updated to put patients first. It aims to be a unifying force, superseding national, ethnic, religious and cultural boundaries by focusing on widely shared values.

Source

[jackfaire]

Yes, but here he's in a situation where he keeps being told "This is murder." He doesn't much care for murder (who does?) and thus, he decides to... Not cause murder.

And if he felt that giving the woman Plan B is the same thing as Murder then he needs to be stripped of his Medical License and deemed unfit to practice in any state because his next step is probably to masturbate her to cure hysteria.

I am not joking. There is clear and definitive medical descriptions of how Plan B works and that it prevents conception in the first place.

If he denied it on the basis that he is say, Catholic, and feels contraceptives are wrong and that everyone should be trying to procreate every time they have sex fine get another doctor.

But if his belief is that it would be murder when Plan B is clearly, especially to a member of the medical profession with 7 years of schooling, not a murder pill then he clearly has no place practicing medicine at all because he is stupid and uneducated and cheated off of someone else's tests in Medical School while believing none of it.

[lordlundar]

it is not "required", but it is administered nonetheless.....




Source

Administered but not enforced, which is a shame as far as I'm considered. As far as I'm considered, violating the Hippocratic oath should warrant an immediate review and suspension and/or removal of license on the violator.

[draco664]

Administered but not enforced, which is a shame as far as I'm considered. As far as I'm considered, violating the Hippocratic oath should warrant an immediate review and suspension and/or removal of license on the violator.

A nice, if impractical, idea. The oath is not a legally binding agreement; if it were, surgery would be outlawed simply because it technically violates the very first clause of the oath - do no harm.

There are already tests and mechanisms in place to remove a doc's licence. They may need reviewing and strengthening, but that's a heck of a lot easier than 'enforcing' the oath.

[Duelist925]

A nice, if impractical, idea. The oath is not a legally binding agreement; if it were, surgery would be outlawed simply because it technically violates the very first clause of the oath - do no harm.

There are already tests and mechanisms in place to remove a doc's licence. They may need reviewing and strengthening, but that's a heck of a lot easier than 'enforcing' the oath.

No one with any sense would charge a doctor for violating the hippocratic oath by performing surgery, since not performing the surgery would be doing a much greater harm.

and, in any case, the modern version doesnt say that--Nyoibo quoted the modern version.

[draco664]

No one with any sense would charge a doctor for violating the hippocratic oath by performing surgery,

Oh, I totally agree. Unfortunately, if you've spent any time looking at the sort of legal cases that appear in the various courts around the world, you soon come to the conclusion that having no sense is in no way a barrier to a long career in law.

Bluntly, there are freaking retards out there. The judge who sued a dry-cleaner for 67 million for losing a pair of pants, for instance. The DA who ended up disbarred for charging an entire lacrosse team with rape in the face of exculpatory evidence. Jack Thompson.

If political mileage could be made out of it, someone will do it - even if the rest of the world looks at you and scratches their head in bewilderment.

since not performing the surgery would be doing a much greater harm.

Well, the Catholic Church excommunicated a doctor for performing an operation to save a 9 year old rape victim's life. So yes, there are retards out there who would prefer you to 'not do surgery' even if it results in greater harm.

and, in any case, the modern version doesnt say that--Nyoibo quoted the modern version.

There are several modern versions of the oath. There is not one definitive version.

[Nyoibo]

Actually, the hippocratic oath makes a distinction between a doctor and a surgeon.

[Duelist925]

Oh, I totally agree. Unfortunately, if you've spent any time looking at the sort of legal cases that appear in the various courts around the world, you soon come to the conclusion that having no sense is in no way a barrier to a long career in law.

Bluntly, there are freaking retards out there. The judge who sued a dry-cleaner for 67 million for losing a pair of pants, for instance. The DA who ended up disbarred for charging an entire lacrosse team with rape in the face of exculpatory evidence. Jack Thompson.

If political mileage could be made out of it, someone will do it - even if the rest of the world looks at you and scratches their head in bewilderment.

....Yeah, thats a fair point. "no one with any sense"....doesnt cover nearly as many people as I'd like it to. Blah.

[ngc_7331]

....Yeah, thats a fair point. "no one with any sense"....doesnt cover nearly as many people as I'd like it to. Blah.

Yeah, common sense ain't so common anymore.

[draco664]

Actually, the hippocratic oath makes a distinction between a doctor and a surgeon.

All right, tell me a rabid anti-vax-er wouldn't (if they had the chance, for violating the hippocratic oath) sue a doctor for 'doing harm' for giving a child a shot.

My point is that medical-malpractice insurance premiums are already several times the average wage - due in no small part to the way the courts are set up. Adding the option to charge/sue a doctor over the HO would open a can of worms that would result in more expensive medical care (a result of upped premiums), meaning a lower standard overall.

[Duelist925]

All right, tell me a rabid anti-vax-er wouldn't (if they had the chance, for violating the hippocratic oath) sue a doctor for 'doing harm' for giving a child a shot.

My point is that medical-malpractice insurance premiums are already several times the average wage - due in no small part to the way the courts are set up. Adding the option to charge/sue a doctor over the HO would open a can of worms that would result in more expensive medical care (a result of upped premiums), meaning a lower standard overall.

To be fair, thats the kinda thing that a doctor would get called on anyway--administering any sort of care to someone without their consent (Or, in the case of a minor, without parental consent) would get them sued as is.

[Sarah Valentine]

A friend of mine said some religious groups oppose not only abortion but contraception as well, that being said it's my opinion that religion has NO place in a doctors office at all. This woman was raped and that's horrible enough but for a doctor, a medical professional that people are supposed to trust to help them to tell her no because of their religious beliefs? He should've given her the contraception because what's worse preventing a life, or (god forbid the rapist did get her pregnant) have her carry a rape baby to remind her every day of the nightmare she went through?

[draco664]

This woman was raped and that's horrible enough but for a doctor, a medical professional that people are supposed to trust to help them to tell her no because of their religious beliefs? He should've given her the contraception because what's worse preventing a life, or (god forbid the rapist did get her pregnant) have her carry a rape baby to remind her every day of the nightmare she went through?

Ah, but at least he'd sleep happy in the thought that the imaginary sky pixie of some bronze age goat herders was pleased that he helped bring untold, ongoing misery to a rape victim. Because, you know, she deserved it. Or something.

[tropicsgoddess]

Personally, I think regardless of religion, if you provide health care and receive government money, you should have to provide all legal standards of care that you are qualified to give. This whole picking and choosing over "moral" qualms is bullshit. If you do decide you don't want to provide whatever, go into private practice and have a readily available notice of what you will not provide/perform.

It's also bullshit that in the US it seems the only morals that are seen as, well, moral are the ones from the Christian mindset. I am a moral person, but I'm sure not a Christian.

Thank you!!! I completely agree with that!!!