Lindsey 0 #101 July 23, 2008 I would jump in here and help ya', but you're doing GREAT! And for the record, I'm on the same page with ya. Hey surely you've seen the video for "I ain't as good as I once was...." HAHAHAH! Fitting, so I'll just provide a little moral support here instead of checking out that "but I'm as good once as I ever was" theory. Hehe. Peace~ linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #102 July 23, 2008 QuoteNo... but some people seem to think that they are ENTITLED to whatever the hell they want even if it imposes their beliefs on others. ELECTIVE PROCEDURES ARE ELECTIVE. It's a CHOICE not a need. I fail to see that as having the slightest relevance to the issue at hand.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteNo... but some people seem to think that they are ENTITLED to whatever the hell they want even if it imposes their beliefs on others. ELECTIVE PROCEDURES ARE ELECTIVE. It's a CHOICE not a need. I fail to see that as having the slightest relevance to the issue at hand. It's relevant because there is no overriding medical necessity for the procedure to be done. Doc K has shown several times that she has no problems performing an abortive procedure due to medical necessity.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #104 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteNo... but some people seem to think that they are ENTITLED to whatever the hell they want even if it imposes their beliefs on others. ELECTIVE PROCEDURES ARE ELECTIVE. It's a CHOICE not a need. I fail to see that as having the slightest relevance to the issue at hand. What confuses you about it? (Honestly... am I not communicating well, or are you just being stubborn?) It is an ELECTIVE procedure. Not a medical necessity. I don't HAVE to do those procedures. My patients don't HAVE to stay with me if I don't, but they can't force me to do a surgery or procedure that I feel is not medically indicated. If a woman walked into a plastic surgery office with a 38H and said she wanted enlargement... they didn't HAVE to do that. Yes, they would be leaving money on the table... but sometimes it's not about just making money. Or how about someone with a good knee that goes into the ortho and wants a total knee? He might even have a good reason. But with any surgery comes risks... I have to weigh in my mind if that surgery is worth the risk for me to do. It's not just about the patient... If my patient dies on the table... I have to live with my part in taking her there. Now if it was medically indicated and I refused... that would be a breach of the standard of care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #105 July 23, 2008 Quote Well, I don’t know about a pill for abortion but sometimes I wish there was a retroactive birth control pill. This thread should have been aborted. The initial post was in no way viable, and is a danger to SC (as sick and near-death as SC is....). "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #106 July 23, 2008 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. It is not my argument, read the text of the proposed bush administration redefinition. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is redefining abortion to mean anything that prevents the fertilized egg implanting itself in the uterus. I am upset that they are redefining it this way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #107 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe 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. If you read my post to which you replied, you will see that I was referring to the employees claiming their rights were being violated by being expected to do their job. When one takes a job, they also surrender some rights and freedoms, just like occurs in the military. An employee can CHOOSE not to do their job, but then there are consequences to that decision. The needs of the employer sometimes outweigh the needs of the individual. If an individual is not happy with the sacrifices they have to make for a particular job, they are free to seek alternative employment. Totally agree with you, it would be like a fireman refusing to put a fire out because the house on fire belonged to an unmarried couple and he believed living together unmarried was a sin. With certain jobs comes responsibility over and above ones beliefs. This bush administration change of policy allows right wing Christians to get away with not fulfilling those responsibilities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #108 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuotePreviously, 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. You have highlighted the heart problem with this new rule. Federal aid would be refused to an a practice that fired an employee who refused to provide birth control to a patient. A person with ulterior motives could get a job at a planned parenthood or other such clinic and cause problems. Who benefits from this rule, only the religious right-wingers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #109 July 23, 2008 QuoteIt is not my argument, read the text of the proposed bush administration redefinition. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION is redefining abortion to mean anything that prevents the fertilized egg implanting itself in the uterus. I am upset that they are redefining it this way. As shown in the thread, birth control pills fool the body into believing it is pregnant, so no more eggs are released. No egg, no conception. Can you provide the status of this supposed bill, or a link to it? It doesn't seem to exist on the Library of Congress' search page. Also, wouldn't said bill (assuming it even exists) be written and voted in by a PELOSI CONGRESS before being signed by a BUSH ADMINISTRATION?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 July 23, 2008 QuoteWho benefits from this rule, only the religious right-wingers. So you have no problem with discrimination, as long as it's "those" people? Nice....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #111 July 23, 2008 Quote Totally agree with you, it would be like a fireman refusing to put a fire out because the house on fire belonged to an unmarried couple and he believed living together unmarried was a sin. With certain jobs comes responsibility over and above ones beliefs. This bush administration change of policy allows right wing Christians to get away with not fulfilling those responsibilities. Nope. Still wrong. In that analogy, the house is on fire. That is an EMERGENCY. I have already stated that if the patient had a medical condition (and even gave examples) that I would agree that the procedure would NEED to be done and would even do it. but... as an elective termination is NOT an emergency, she can go some where else. I don't impose my beliefs on her. My patients NEVER have to do what I tell them. So why should HER beliefs be imposed on me? And don't say "cuz you're a doctor" because, for the reasons outlined above, I don't HAVE to do what the patient tells me to. There are others out there willing to do abortions. She should go to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #112 July 23, 2008 Quote When are you going to give in and just admit that you are clueless about YOUR occupation? That's funny, since you're the only one that has suggested that. Personally, I have no doubt that the doc knows her job.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #113 July 23, 2008 Quote (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.) Personal attack? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #114 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhich (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. Interesting. Thanks for letting us know how the vast majority of OB/Gyns feel after you spoke to all of them.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #115 July 23, 2008 Quote Quote (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.) Personal attack? Some of your post directed at me could easily be viewed as personal attacks against either my morals or my capability as an OB/Gyn. Whether it was meant as such or not, how they were phrased was a bit ... off. I chose not to comment on them Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #116 July 23, 2008 QuoteI choose to disagree. And I will even use me as an example. I am an OB/Gyn. But I disagree with "abortions" on a personal level. I would never have one, nor do ever want to take part of one done as a choice not a medical indication If a girl is raped and subsequently impregnated at the age of 14 (for example) would you still agree an abortion is unethical? would you take part in such a case. Just interested. it seems the pro-life standpoint is against freedom of choice, I am not saying that you personally are against choice. You have said that you would give all the options to a client, but if abortion is illegal then rape victems may be forced to reer the child of thier rapist. It is a touchy subject i know but a very real one also."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #117 July 23, 2008 Quote Quote (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.) Personal attack? Full frontal assault. The original topic is not about how Dr. Bordson runs her medical practice, but it has devolved into rabid criticism of her choices, none of which are the business of anyone but her colleagues and patients. Name-calling and cheap insults are nothing to this, and it is unconscionable that she should be subjected to it.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #118 July 23, 2008 Quote Dear Dr. Bordson, Is it true that the reason that they call it a “period” or "menstrual cycle” is because “Mad Cow Disease” was already taken? I just want to mention that after this is over, all the women here are going to take you out back and punish you. You're in big trouble now, Mike. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #119 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuote Totally agree with you, it would be like a fireman refusing to put a fire out because the house on fire belonged to an unmarried couple and he believed living together unmarried was a sin. With certain jobs comes responsibility over and above ones beliefs. This bush administration change of policy allows right wing Christians to get away with not fulfilling those responsibilities. Nope. Still wrong. … No, it's still right. You keep trying to make this about you. It's not about you. It's about the assistant working at Planned Parenthood you described in post 100 of this thread. She has a job to do, and it's not typically up to her to decide whether or not the task is required or elective, just like the convenience store clerk who is asked to sell cigarettes, and just like the soldier being sent to fight a war he doesn't believe in for an army in which he volunteered to serve.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #120 July 23, 2008 QuoteThat's funny, since you're the only one that has suggested that. Personally, I have no doubt that the doc knows her job. News flash.....she was not the one that I was sugesting was clueless.Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #121 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteI choose to disagree. And I will even use me as an example. I am an OB/Gyn. But I disagree with "abortions" on a personal level. I would never have one, nor do ever want to take part of one done as a choice not a medical indication If a girl is raped and subsequently impregnated at the age of 14 (for example) would you still agree an abortion is unethical? would you take part in such a case. Just interested. it seems the pro-life standpoint is against frrwdom of choice, I am not saying that you personally are against choice as you have said thay you would give all the options, but if abortion is illegal then rape victems may be forced to reer the child of thier rapist. It is a touchy subject i know but a very real one also. But abortion is not illegal. And she still has the choice. This type of case truly depends on the situation. I can't say "yes" or "no." (but I would lean toward the "no") One of my closest patients and now one of my firends is a 19 year old that has had her second child. I delivered her first when she was only 14. She had excellent support from her mother. She was mature (HONESTLY! She is one of the most mature and responsible teenagers that I have ever known) She verbalized that she "wanted the baby." Even though she was a minor... she seemed to understand. And so did her mother. Now... lets look at this case as if I had patted her on the head and paternistically treated her as if she NEEDED an abortion. She would have undergone a surgical procedure (unless she was fortunate enough to be medically treated. . . but methotrexate on a 14 year old... most would do the D&C) That could cause physical problems in the future and emotional ones as well. So could the pregnancy. Don't get me wrong. PREGNANCY CAN BE DANGEROUS. But... can you tell me which is less traumatic to the patient? And are facilities with PROPER counselling and support systems in place be a better place for her to have that. KU might not have been the right place for her to have an abortion... but I think we took care of her very well with the pregnancy. If it was MY 14 year old daughter?! I wouldn't want the govenment to limit what she chose... but my thoughts are that her rights have been violated enough with the rape itself... I wouldn't want to add to her feelings of powerlessness by taking away her decision-making. If she decided to do that, I would take her to a place that was known for compassionate and nonjudgemental care. (and I would walk in with her for support.... but I would still personally mourn the babe... and my lil 14yo babe too) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #122 July 23, 2008 Quote Quote (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.) Personal attack? Full frontal assault. LMAO Oh, how the unfounded accusations fly! Quote The original topic is not about how Dr. Bordson runs her medical practice … You'll notice who keeps making it about her when attempts are made to bring it back on topic? (Hint: it isn't me.) So, do you have anything topical to add, or are you just here to cry foul?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #123 July 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteThat's funny, since you're the only one that has suggested that. Personally, I have no doubt that the doc knows her job. News flash.....she was not the one that I was sugesting was clueless. I know. Perhaps you should check out that mirror you mentioned previously?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #124 July 23, 2008 Quote You're in big trouble now, Mike. Story of my life Rhonda, but be prepared to wait as it is a long line.Guess it is a good thing that I didn't bring up that the reason you can't trust women is because you can't trust anything that bleeds every month and LIVES!!!.....Mike runs and hidesTime and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #125 July 23, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote (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.) Personal attack? Full frontal assault. LMAO Oh, how the unfounded accusations fly! I'm always amazed at the human capacity for denial, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Quote The original topic is not about how Dr. Bordson runs her medical practice … You'll notice who keeps making it about her when attempts are made to bring it back on topic? (Hint: it isn't me.) So, do you have anything topical to add, or are you just here to cry foul? Perhaps when it's no longer foul, I'll be able to focus on the topic.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
