jcd11235 0
jcd11235 0
QuoteThe fault in your logic is claiming that she is somehow obligated to do an elective procedure, when you know nothing about the policies of her partnership or any agreements from when she was hired.
You also make the assumption that there are no other doctors in the partnership that are willing/able to do the procedure, or other clinics that the patient can be refered to, so you make the further assumption that the patient is somehow harmed by Doc K's refusal to do an elective procedure.
You should probably go back and reread the thread.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
Quotewhat she was getting at is that most ob practices do not do elective abortions, you most likely would have to go to an abortion clinic.
Yes, I long since have acknowledged that misunderstanding on my part.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteThe fault in your logic is claiming that she is somehow obligated to do an elective procedure, when you know nothing about the policies of her partnership or any agreements from when she was hired.
You also make the assumption that there are no other doctors in the partnership that are willing/able to do the procedure, or other clinics that the patient can be refered to, so you make the further assumption that the patient is somehow harmed by Doc K's refusal to do an elective procedure.
You should probably go back and reread the thread.
I have read it - although I was beginning to wonder if you truly read any of Doc K's responses - from your last post, I see that you're getting the gist of her argument, now.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kbordson 8
QuoteQuoteWhat is worse, redefining abortion to include taking the pill means they can refuse some forms of birth control.
This is the part of your argument that I disagree with.
COCP or "the pill" doesn't work by preventing implantation, it prevents ovulation (and therefore conception.) It can't be considered "abortion" even under the language of this proposal.
You'd have to come up with a "zeroth" or "negative first" trimester to make it fit the definition. Or just... you know... become a devout Catholic.
You're partially right.
It is designed to prevent ovulation.
But it can also be used as a abortive agent. (dosing depends on which pill it is) As it would inhibit implantation. And your beliefs on whether "life begins" at fertilization or implation depends on whether you chose to use that or not.
(as also mentioned above.... one of the mechanisms of action of one of the IUD's is to prevent implantation... which I counsel patients on in case she might have reservations due to that)
When are you going to give in and just admit that you are clueless about YOUR occupation?
Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!
champu 1
QuoteQuoteGood luck getting the thread back on topic. You'll need it.
I'd still be curious to hear what Karen, or anyone, thinks about the other half of this proposal that I tried to call attention to 50 posts ago now...
The bit about boiled frogs?
I think frog's legs are delicious, but I prefer them floured and sauteed in butter, not boiled.
(Edited to add: Sorry. It's just that the personal attack on the good doctor hasn't let up, and Mike's attempts at distraction haven't borne fruit, so I figured I'd give it a whirl.)
If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
QuoteQuoteThe analogy of the soldier picking and choosing which wars to fight is quite apt.
Still a wrong analogy.
In the military, you surrender some of your rights. You follow the UCMJ. As a soldier, you can CHOOSE to act against that signed contract but then there are consequences for that decision. The needs of the military out weigh the needs of the individual.
To be an OB/Gyn, although I am trained to do D&C's (laymans terms - "abortion"), I can CHOOSE not to do any elective cases that I don't agree with. In fact, I don't HAVE to do a hysterectomy just cuz some woman walks in and wants it out... and in fact I typically have to have a medical reason and pathology (meaning "bad stuff") as a reason to do the surgery.
Previously, you tried to get this back on track as a discussion of employee rights. It may be semantics, but I don't see a partner as being an employee. Whatever the Obi Wan Kenobi term for an assistant is...would you fire one who refused to help do pap smears? Or to help shave anyone prior to a surgical procedure? Part of the original post was about declining federal funds to those employers who refuse to hire someone on the basis of a moral objection. There is a difference in my mind between an employee and someone who gets to call the shots in their practice. Nevermind what the customer says they want, if the boss says "do this" or "don't do this" and both are perfectly legal alternatives, I think the employer should have the option of giving the refusing employee the boot.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
kbordson 8
QuoteThis is pulling out stops for hospitals (including state-funded institutions) to refuse to perform abortions (as defined above) as a general policy. First it was, "abortion is wrong and therefore illegal," and that failed. Then we had, "leave it up to the states," and that didn't work. Now it's, "leave it up to the [potentially state-funded] hospitals." I guess we'll see what happens on this one.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this part, but it really looks as though someone is trying to boil a frog.
I do understand what you're saying here. And I do agree.
Just to educate you though, stated funded hospitals do not do abortions now... at least KU (University of Kansas - Kansas City) didn't. If we wanted that specific training, we had the option to do a month or two at the local facilities that did provide that service. We were required, however to show competency by doing the same procedure on incomplete miscarraiges (spontaneous abortions that didn't end right) and "missed miscarraiges" / "blighted ovums" (pregnancy never developed)
But your point is that by taking away the funds... it might be legal, but there will be no place to have it done.
I don't really see that happening though. I do know some OB/Gyn's that have do not have the moral restrictions. They would provide that service. Then you ask "but where?"
Honestly... it's better practice now to use medicines to terminate (methotrexate and cytotec) than to do an unnecessary surgery. You don't need a surgical suite to write for those prescriptions.
And... then when she comes back to see me 3-4yrs down the road, trying to get pregnant... I feel a little better knowing that it was the medicine that was used and that her cervix wasn't dilated and possibly weakened and that the uterine cavity wasn't scrapped and possibly scarred. . . .
So... in my opinion... it will drive terminations to be more medical and less surgical. Which is a good thing.
QuoteWhich (to me) implies that 1) OB/Gyn clinics do not typically perform elective abortions as part of their normal practice or 2) the vast majority of OB/Gyns object to elective abortions for moral reasons. Number two seems highly unlikely, so I'll go with number one.
all of the ob/gyns i've talked about this with object to elective abortions for moral reasons, but they also all respect the woman's right to choose. some of them have even gone as far as telling them how to get in touch with dr. tiller. number one is correct because of number two.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
kbordson 8
QuotePreviously, you tried to get this back on track as a discussion of employee rights. It may be semantics, but I don't see a partner as being an employee. Whatever the Obi Wan Kenobi term for an assistant is...would you fire one who refused to help do pap smears? Or to help shave anyone prior to a surgical procedure? Part of the original post was about declining federal funds to those employers who refuse to hire someone on the basis of a moral objection. There is a difference in my mind between an employee and someone who gets to call the shots in their practice. Nevermind what the customer says they want, if the boss says "do this" or "don't do this" and both are perfectly legal alternatives, I think the employer should have the option of giving the refusing employee the boot.
Blues,
Dave
I have been thinking about this.... and to some point you are correct.
If I worked in a Planned Parenthood and my nurse didn't want to assist with terminations, then it would be better for her to find a job more suited to her. Would I "fire" her? I don't know. Are there other tasks that she was needed for? Or is she the only nurse and I rely on the help and support of someone with reservations about her job? If she didn't like it, I would help her find work in a different clinic. But I wouldn't FORCE her to do something she was morally against.
My current practice. My nurse would, at times, decline to go into the room and assisst with certain patients when she was pregnant. (examples being recent miscarraiges or infertility patients) She did this out of respect for the ladies cuz she had this big ole tummy and didn't want to put it in their face. She always had someone covering and available if I needed it. There is NO WAY IN HELL that I would fire her for that. In fact, I think it shows very highly of her compassion.
But... in either situation, I would not FORCE my nurse to do something that they had objections to.
Yes, I think I do, at least to the extent that it's relevant to this discussion.
[replies]I am TRAINED to do them.
Yes, doctors usually receive training outside of the area in which they later specialize. If a octogenarian needed an emergency tracheotomy, and the only MD present was a young pediatrician, she would be able to perform the procedure, even if it is not something they typically do in her practice. She has had the training.
Perhaps you've even had advanced training in the procedure (beyond med school and residency). That's not atypical for a professional in any field (as opposed to an expert in a trade or vocation).
Which (to me) implies that 1) OB/Gyn clinics do not typically perform elective abortions as part of their normal practice or 2) the vast majority of OB/Gyns object to elective abortions for moral reasons. Number two seems highly unlikely, so I'll go with number one.
Yes they are. But when you share those reasons on a public forum, they are fair game for discussion.
A very poor analogy indeed. Few people, if anyone goes to their MD to get cigarettes. On the other hand, if you worked in a convenience store and refused to sell alcohol, tobacco or caffeinated products for religious reasons, I suspect you would be looking for a job very quickly.