Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Specialist docs. in particular have been practicing defensive medicine against lawsuits for decades.
Were these decisions baseless? Was the decision made because the patient might do something or something might happen to them in the future that a medication might have a not fatal, not debilitating effect on.
I would be interested to know specific instances.
I don't see this as an issue of her being oppressed or the fetus having more rights over her body. Modern dialogue loves to couch arguments that way, but that's a political construct on what is a practical liability on the part of the doctor and the drug manufacturer if she were to get pregnant. Lots of people have changes of heart when they discover they are pregnant. Do you think courts will NOT find the doctor and drug company liable if she has a baby who needs expensive lifetime care and pain and suffering?
Is there any reason to think she won't sue? Remember how we even know about her story... An attention-seeking social media blitz. Of course she'll sue.
Why should she have to go through an invasive procedure just to get some pain relief? She has stated she doesn't want kids and has no plans to get pregnant, but even still, that phantom fetus that doesn't exist has full control over her body. Tell me how this is right.
You mean how doctors wouldn't prescribe hydroxycholoquin or ivermectin and how, if they did, pharmacists wouldn't fill it?
Like that?
I think the main difference is that the drug that she was supposed to get actually works for the intended problem and has a significant amount of medical literature indicating that it does.
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine didn't have that type of backing.
But the think I don't get is that both of those drugs are relatively harmless so why not give them to right wingers who seek them. Just warn them that they don't work and make them sign a disclaimer saying they won't sue if the 'vid gets them.
I don't see this as an issue of her being oppressed or the fetus having more rights over her body, that's a political construct on what is a practical liability on the part of the doctor and the drug manufacturer if she were to get pregnant. Lots of people have changes of heart when they discover they are pregnant. Do you think courts will NOT find the doctor and drug company liable if she has a baby who needs expensive lifetime care and pain and suffering?
Is there any reason to thing she won't sue? Remember how we even know about her story... An attention-seeking social media blitz. Of course she'll sue.
No. The neurologist is working within the confines of Nash/von Neumann style "Mini-Max" game theory. If the doc. prescribes the pain killer for the lady and she becomes pregnant and gives birth to a compromised baby or is forced to abort along the way or loses the baby due the drug the doc. faces near infinite legal peril. Please note all of this is in NY a great place to sue docs.
----Mini-Max applied to this context means the chances of the doctor being sued are fairly slim but the consequences of him being sued and losing would be extreme/career ruining possibly.
Assuming you are correct in this (I never heard of Mini-Max), why couldn't the doc have her sign a disclaimer stating she is aware of the risks?
Actually I'm not so sure how legit this story is. Abortion is legal in NY last I heard, so the overturn of Roe v Wade that was alleged in the story seems a stretch.
I suspect the reason for not giving this woman pain meds is for the same reason that other people in chronic pain have trouble getting these meds. Either the doc has previously gotten in trouble for too freely giving out scripts or the woman is seen as a drug-seeker. Looking at the dark circles under her eyes, I would say she is in pain and not able to sleep.
I don't see this as an issue of her being oppressed or the fetus having more rights over her body. Modern dialogue loves to couch arguments that way, but that's a political construct on what is a practical liability on the part of the doctor and the drug manufacturer if she were to get pregnant. Lots of people have changes of heart when they discover they are pregnant. Do you think courts will NOT find the doctor and drug company liable if she has a baby who needs expensive lifetime care and pain and suffering?
Is there any reason to thing she won't sue? Remember how we even know about her story... An attention-seeking social media blitz. Of course she'll sue.
Ah, yes, the little lady doesn't really know her own mind. Me, the doctor, will tell her what she thinks and feels. She's just a little lady, after all. She must be told what she really wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook
Is she unable or unwilling to do a hysterectomy?
Again, she must mutilate her body in order for her medical needs to be met? Good grief.
You mean how doctors wouldn't prescribe hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and how, if they did, pharmacists wouldn't fill it?
Like that?
Those are examples of medications approved for particular medical problems being prescribed for a medical condition they were not approved for. I dont know of instances where Hydroxychloroquine was refused to treat patients with malaria. This is a case where the medications is approved for the patient's medical condition and there is no logical reason the patient could not safetly take the medication. So not, not exactly.
I don't see this as an issue of her being oppressed or the fetus having more rights over her body. Modern dialogue loves to couch arguments that way, but that's a political construct on what is a practical liability on the part of the doctor and the drug manufacturer if she were to get pregnant. Lots of people have changes of heart when they discover they are pregnant. Do you think courts will NOT find the doctor and drug company liable if she has a baby who needs expensive lifetime care and pain and suffering?
Is there any reason to think she won't sue? Remember how we even know about her story... An attention-seeking social media blitz. Of course she'll sue.
Is she unable or unwilling to do a hysterectomy?
No. They don't do hysterectomies for birth control. Besides, that is major surgery that would require pain meds during recovery and they are trying to find excuses to not give her pain meds.
A tubal might be in order, but again, she needs to find a different doc, out of her local area.
Ah, yes, the little lady doesn't really know her own mind. Me, the doctor, will tell her what she thinks and feels. She's just a little lady, after all. She must be told what she really wants.
Again, she must mutilate her body in order for her medical needs to be met? Good grief.
OK you take the risk. And let others use their own judgment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
