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

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    323
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • harmonea@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I get where you’re coming from but practicing medicine is pretty different from being a chef in a vegan restaurant. One can still do lots of things that don’t cause issues with one’s beliefs. The chef can just get a job at a different restaurant, it’s the restaurant not the profession as a whole imposing the restrictions.

        • harmonea@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I don’t think removing people’s right to say “get lost Karen” is really a good thing.

          I know that’s not what’s happening here, but compulsion to do a task isn’t something I think we should really be striving for, especially when we’ve already got a shortage of medical professionals.

          As a general rule people aren’t mandated to do things by law, they’re simply given permission or denied permission by law. A license is the former for cases where the default is “you don’t have permission.”

          That said, I think it’s morally bankrupt to not say “while I morally object to XYZ procedure and strongly suggest spiritual guidance before getting it, it is legal, and other doctors will do it.”

          (Not that it matters but personally I’m not religious)

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      9 months ago

      Based on what I’ve read in r/childfree, it’s far more common than not for doctors to prioritize the needs of a hypothetical husband or fetus over those of a real live woman. I’ve also known someone in real life who couldn’t get a painful medical condition fixed until her mid 30s because the treatment caused sterility. The problem goes way beyond religion; it’s more a matter of institutional sexism and the hubris of doctors thinking they know better than any woman who says she doesn’t want kids.

      • BeaPep@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’ve been to several different OBs trying to solve my almost-two-year-long-period and every single one of them refuses to do anything for me. I’m just “too young” for them to stop me from having kids one day. And giving me a hysterectomy is “too dangerous” and “risky” when my life isn’t in danger. It doesn’t matter that I’ve tried everything they suggest. Try it again!! It’s so fucking tiring.

        I’ve just given up paying the constant doctor fees to see asshole doctors anymore and just figure I’ll either stop having the problem eventually or I’ll be “old enough” (40 maybe?) to finally get surgery… It’s all a nightmare, especially in the religious south…

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I’d check with a women’s group or Planned Parenthood for a doctor recommendation. They might know some sane ones.

          Having been married to a sane one, I do know they’re spectacularly gunshy of affecting a woman’s fertility because it can get them sued into the ground if they do something like that to someone that someday wants kids. And patients lie, so when you tell a doctor that you don’t want kids, they assume you’re going to change your mind. And I’m not sure if there’s a disclosure you can sign that would hold up in court if you changed your mind one day. So there’s that.

          • BeaPep@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I might try this! I haven’t tried Planned Parenthood yet.

            Honestly I feel like I’ve tried everything to make them listen!! I’ve brought my wife with me to the appointments!! I’ve mentioned that I first brought up hysterectomies at 17 when I suffered from multi-week periods! I’ve mentioned I’m asexual and that I’m married and never even had sex so I don’t see kids in the future!

            But I do get that doctors have to worry about the liars. I can get why it’s important to have the option to sue a doctor who wronged you but I wish there really was an intensive disclosure you could just do rather than run around until you find a doctor who’s willing to trust you not to regret it. It sucks all around.

        • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Can you find a doctor near you in the list in the r/childfree sidebar? That’s how I found mine, and she’s great. Good luck to you, I hope things turn out better. I’m sorry this is a thing :(

        • switches@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          my friend was having enormous clots come out during her horrifically long periods, losing the amount of blood that was actually making her anemic and causing her problems, and they still didn’t want to do anything because she was only in her 30s. thankfully she finally found a doctor who was like ‘wow yeah you need that thing taken out of there its killing you’ and she got it removed, but the fact she had to go through all that stress and pain to find anyone who would help her is absurd.

        • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          r/childfree has a list of providers by state that regularly provide hysterectomies. I recommend checking it out, and when you call for an appointment, say that you want a consultation for a hysterectomy and don’t say anything else. I saw one of the providers from that list and she agreed that a hysterectomy was appropriate for me (31 years old, no kids) in part because of how horrible my periods are when I’m not on continuous hormonal birth control. The only reason we didn’t schedule the surgery right then and there is because the Depo shot is working for the moment and she was concerned about how the recovery from surgery would affect my ability to study for medical school and board exams.

          • BeaPep@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I actually tried three different providers from the childfree subreddit. One ended up refusing me entirely due to no insurance (I’m in Georgia and Medicaid hasn’t been expanded yet. Though there was a mini-expansion this year.) and another actually worked with me over the phone for around 2 months without making me go to an appointment and pay just to see if I had enough… “evidence” or something that they could sign off on a hysterectomy. They ended up telling me I’d need to at least re-try several things first. I couldn’t afford the surgery plus 5+ visits several hours away. The third closest option from the childfree list was in another state and couldn’t see me unless I had their state insurance coverage.

            I’m trying the Depo shot now from the health department but it hasn’t helped at all. Thank you though! It’s a long road ahead.

            Edit: The provider who worked with me over the phone did offer me an ablation but they couldn’t guarantee that it would fix the issues and it would cost me my entire hysterectomy savings fund so I just couldn’t justify it. I may have the term “ablation” wrong because I remember I spoke in depth about it and one other very similar procedure… Either way they were very nice at least and I can see why they are on the list.

            • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, healthcare in this country is a hot mess in a lot of ways. Something that could help push it in the direction of getting coverage is if you have any family history of things like uterine fibroids, or gynecological cancers. It’s a pretty straightforward thing on the paperwork end of things if cancer prophylaxis is on the list of reasons.

              Another thing you could consider in this capitalist hellscape is signing up for a plan off the ACA that has a deductible similar to or less than your savings. That way you would wipe out the deductible immediately, have access to more providers, and have some semblance of coverage for the rest of the year.

        • Tefinite Dev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Wow, all it took for me was a gay man clutching my testicles during a five minute conversation about how vasectomies aren’t really reversible for me to get clipped. I was only 30 years old

        • whatwhatwutyut@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          “Too risky” is such bullshit anyway. My OBGYN said that at my age (22), the only risks (aside from potential complications that come with ANY surgery) were a slightly early menopause (couple years max) and higher chance of vaginal prolapse (but that they put supports in place and there are things that can be done to correct this if it occurs)

          • BeaPep@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Right?? That’s pretty much what it seemed like to me too. No doctor really wanted to go into it except one mentioned that “any surgery with anesthesia can be dangerous!” and I remember I ditched that doctor on the first visit. I think a lot of it is rural areas have… less than great doctors.

            Most of my doctor hopping was at least 9 months ago now so it all kinda just blurs together now.

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’d have to prove it was purely religion and not their “genuine medical opinion”.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          The people refusing are openly stating that it is because of their religious beliefs. If they try to hide it then it will become apparent very quickly when their opinion always ends up with something other than the thing they oppose.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            It is so easy to lie about your intentions and hide it behind legit sounding excuses, like “but you could have a child one day”.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • LavaPlanet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    186
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Even worse then the headline…

    One of the nurses started calling other hospitals lying about what happened, and even found the patient on Facebook and messaged her partner

    She knows has to travel outside of the state to get appointments

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Holy fucking Handmaid’s Tale.

    “Your womb is worth more than you.”

    I hope they take his license after the insurance companies drop him.

    • Salamendacious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    9 months ago

    Albany Medical Health Partners is who she’s suing.
    The specific hospital was Glenn’s Falls.
    For anyone wondering.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

      • MelodiousFunk@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        To paraphrase a wise owl, when you look at something through rose colored glasses, all of the red flags are just flags.

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          …. 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

      • spider@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        Conservative = Regressive.

        “Great Again” is just a euphemism for this.

  • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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?

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      No, not in New York. These were personal decisions on the part of the health care providers, and I think k this lawsuit is not only appropriate but desperately needed.

      The suit is exactly targeted. When fetal personhood is considered to outweigh the life of the mother, it’s absolutely something that needs to be fought tooth and nail. When a hypothetical future fetus is determined to be more important than the life and health of the mother, we’ve entered into a zone that can only be called psychotic.

      There is no case that makes it more clear that they’re turning women into sub-persons.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        This is the thing, and why this case seems shoe-in. None of the bullshit the recent SCOTUS has been saying about fetal rights can possibly hold if there isn’t a fetus in the first place.

        And I hate that as a pro-choicer I’m the one on the side of “erode the decision”, but we need to slowly slip law back off this ledge. First a case where we know there wasn’t a fetus. Then a case that erodes the amount of pregnancy testing a patient needs before receiving lifesaving care for herself. Etc.

        I still cannot believe we live in a post-Dobbs world.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • BanditMcDougal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      9 months ago

      Up-state NY is more rural and conservative. Towns in the mountains can be fairly small and isolated; those areas vote extremely red.

      • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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

    • theotherone@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • lingh0e@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

  • FlowVoid@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects

      I’d love to see some kind of citation or a medical professional’s opinion. this seems like bullshit but I’m willing to read supporting evidence if you have any.

        • vivadanang@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          if the patient isn’t pregnant, tests not pregnant, and says they won’t get pregnant, and if they happen to get pregnant, abort the fetus, what the fuck is your problem? this woman asserted all this to the medical ‘professional’ and was still treated like a child who needed someone else’s permission to receive the treatment she needed.

          Ever had a migraine?

          Comparing it to Thalidomide? FUCK YOU. The drug company knew it had multiple issues with pregnancy and still put it out. Docs warned each other. This is not the same thing, but you’re trying to scare people into thinking there’s an equivalence. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415

          • random65837@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            9 months ago

            if the patient isn’t pregnant, tests not pregnant, and says they won’t get pregnant, and if they happen to get pregnant, abort the fetus, what the fuck is your problem? this woman asserted all this to the medical ‘professional’ and was still treated like a child who needed someone else’s permission to receive the treatment she needed

            Because people say that, change their minds, and then sue and win after the fact. That’s why. If we weren’t in a lawsuit happy society, and if waivers and legal agreements weren’t ignored by judges, doctors wouldn’t have to be petrified to give shit to people. PEOPLE act like children, and that’s we get treated that way not. She’s proving that with this lawsuit.

            Ever had a migraine?

            Ya, and they’re fucking terrible, which is why I said I feel for her, but that changes nothing. I couldn’t get on TRT because my levels were “in range” while I was in the shitter over it, Docs hate giving it, Insurance tries to not prescribe it in levels that actually fix anything, so I bypassed them, went to a cash pay clinic and got what I wanted. I didn’t sue the fucking doctor, we live in a anti man society and they’ll get shit on by their practice for doing their job.

            Comparing it to Thalidomide? FUCK YOU. The drug company knew it had multiple issues with pregnancy and still put it out. Docs warned each other. This is not the same thing, but you’re trying to scare people into thinking there’s an equivalence. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415

            I’m very aware of it’s history, and it was fucking people up LONG before it got pulled wasn’t it?

            • vivadanang@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              ah it’s always that way huh? dirty patients lying to their docs?

              get fucked.

              hopefully you get a migraine this weekend to remind you to be humane to others.

              • random65837@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                9 months ago

                Quote me saying “dirty patients lying to their docs”

                I said people change thier minds. Can’t keep going without putting words in my mouth huh? Thats telling.

                My migraines were addressed. I dont get them anymore. Luckily I had docs that worked at finding the issues and didn’t prescribed me drugs they weren’t comofortable with.

                At no point was I not “humane”, nice theatrics though! People like you are the reason docs are like that. Anything you dont like you throw a tantrum like a child, and then relynon virtue signaling others to cry for you with mob mentality. Thanks for proving my point.

        • vivadanang@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          so if anything can go wrong it shouldn’t be prescribed?

          Tell that to the millions of men who have high blood pressure but pop viagra all the time. Women get a double standard of treatment and it’s bullshit. This woman didn’t want children and affirmed she would seek an abortion if she became pregnant despite birth control. Docs still put her through this garbage.

          • Quereller@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            High blood pressure. Viagra can lower your blood pressure. If you’re taking medication to treat high blood pressure, taking Viagra could cause your blood pressure to drop even further. In some cases, this could make you feel dizzy or lightheaded or cause you to faint. And if you have high blood pressure that’s not controlled (measuring higher than 170/110 mmHg), your heart may not be healthy enough for sex. If you have high blood pressure, talk with your doctor about whether Viagra is right for you. If you’re able to take Viagra, your doctor will usually prescribe a dosage for you that’s lower than the typical dosage.

            Oh and this one: Potential for cardiac risk with sexual activity in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease; therefore, treatment for erectile dysfunction generally should not be instituted in men for whom sexual activity is inadvisable because of their underlying cardiovascular status.

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

            Viagra is pretty safe, as drugs go. Are you thinking of Vioxx? That stuff was taken off the market.

            • vivadanang@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              taking viagra with a heart condition is dangerous. but these dr’s apply two sets of rules, one for potential breeding stock and one for the rest of humanity. people are not breeding cattle, these docs need to stay in their fucking lanes and practice medicine, stop injecting their religious opinions onto patients healthcare.

              • FlowVoid@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Most people who take Viagra have hypertension, because hypertension is the main cause of ED. That doesn’t mean Viagra is dangerous, but you shouldn’t combine it with certain other drugs.

                There is a world of difference between valproate and Viagra. Valproate causes birth defects and cognitive delay in 30-50% of pregnancies, which is astonishingly high. If Viagra caused permanent harm to even 5% of users, it would already be off the market.

                • vivadanang@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  so patients should be allowed to use drugs even if there are risks involved.

                  huh, it’s almost like you’re asserting that people should have agency. like the woman in the article, except her docs decided for her that even though she wasn’t going to have a baby either way, so no risk to pregnancy, they wouldn’t put her on that med because…? it’s disgusting.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    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…

      • alcasa@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • sweeny@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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: …

          • Abnorc@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            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?”

              • Kafkacious@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

                • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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.

        • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

    • The_v@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

        • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • bitteorca@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Anti-choice people shot and bombed doctors and clinics so it’s not exactly unprecedented.

        • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          The thing is…it worked. People training to be doctors stopped going into abortion-related fields, some schools stopped teaching late-term abortion techniques, and it overall became more difficult to get abortions. And now abortions are becoming illegal again in many states. Their side won.

          • Drusas@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not yet. A lot of doctors are leaving those states so that they can practice freely without fear of being prosecuted for doing what’s best for their patients. Looking at you, Idaho

          • n2burns@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            You say, “won” like nothing can ever change. Dobbs is definitely a step back but I am certain it’ll change back in my lifetime. I’m not an American, but where I am, we’ve adjusted to the threats against abortion providers and I think many US states have done the same.

            As the saying goes, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

        • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes. Do you think we’re really going to take a doctor like this and sit him down and make him a functioning member of society who treats women with respect?

          • n2burns@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            No, he should lose his medical license and potentially suffer other consequences, but that’s through the process of a civilized society. The nurse practitioner’s actions sound criminal and should be prosecuted as such. No need to act barbaric.

            • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              And that’ll fix society? Because we’ve been trying it that way for a very long time. Things are getting so much better doing it that way right?

              Day by day society is getting more progressive and moving away from things like this right? Right?

              • n2burns@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                9 months ago
                1. Yes, society is getting more progressive.

                2. Even if it didn’t, violence won’t solve anything.

                • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  We are getting more progressive? When did we get roe versus Wade back? Did we stop trying to outlaw trans people? When did the police stop executing black people in the street just for fun?

                  These people do what they want because it’s literally legal for them to do it. Nobody is doing anything to stop them. Now if they all started getting drug into the middle of the street and sat on fire they would think twice.

                • Ononotagain@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I don’t disagree that violence isn’t the correct answer in this situation, but “Violence never solves anything” is just a nice platitude and is demonstrably false. Most of the rights and privileges we have today only came about through violent means. It is more accurate to say violence doesn’t solve everything.

                  Or to put it another way:

                  The Magna Carta was a peace treaty.
                  The ideas of a democratic republic were born of the French and American Revolutions
                  MLK was the peaceful side of a civil rights movement that would not have had the same power without Malcom X and the black panthers.
                  Overtime, the 5 day work week, unions and most labor protections came at the expense of a LOT of blood in the United States.
                  Women’s Suffrage was not a peaceful movement either.

                  In the history of most countries, mass violent protest has been the protest most likely to achieve its goals. Saying “Violence never solves anything” is to turn a blind eye to history.

      • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        If I do I do. But that’s where I am. We keep trying the ‘right’ thing to fix society and get past this shit.

        Its. not. fucking. working.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          It really is working. It might not be as fast as we want, and it’s definitely a bit of “two steps forwards, one step back,” but society is generally moving in the right direction.

          • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Tell this woman and the thousands of others like her that it’s working. I fucking dare you to go to her account and post don’t worry society is getting better just live with it for now.

            • n2burns@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I’m not responding to her specific situation, but the movement of society in general.

          • samothtiger@artemis.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            To be quite frank, we are beyond the time where incremental change is going to save us on so many issues, we might as well drastically raze the entire structure to the ground and rebuild anew. We shortly will not have the planet we used to because we’ve been trying this current method of polite effort. We need to be rude, aggressive, and dangerous to our opposition because they are trying to kill us. They are actively killing us. We are not winning yet and I don’t know if I have time to see us get there.

  • SnausagesinaBlanket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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…”

  • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wouldn’t contraceptives be an even better protection?

    You can’t have birth defects if you’re never conceived *taps head*