Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

[binTravkin]

Hey Patroklos, spitting **** again wherever you go?
We should make a special ApolytonPlus account for you with 'sh^tspitter' as it's status name..

Seriously - ever thought why people feel insulted by you whenever you open your mouth?
No, it's not because you've bad teeth..


On the topic:
Fundamentalism forever!
Long live the biggest parasyte of Humanity - Religion!


Hey, didn't middle age Europe have the same attitude to raped women?

[binTravkin]

Raped or not, that woman has no right to tell anyone no matter what qualifier you use what to do. Especially to abandon their own morality, protected by law.

Law and the State uber alles!
Leave no place for emotion and humanitarism!
If you oppose the law, you're outlaw and must be killed!
All laws are perfectly right and unquestionable!

erm..do I have to continue?

[binTravkin]

Btw - do doctors, farmaceuts and nurses in US have to swore the Theocrathus Swore (maybe I mistake his name but I hope you get the point)?

If so, that's it, they're sinners, they (who denied the treatment for the poor woman) broke that swore..

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Forcing pharmacies to carry every drug would be prohibitively expensive.

Have a cookie. We're talking about forcing pharmacies to carry one specific drug.

Have a bong hit and expand your mind enough to realize that once you do that you open the door for both well-meaning idiots and pork barrellers alike to force all sorts of bizarre drugs to be carried at many thousands of pharmacies, simply based on one tearful anecdote in front of a congressional committee. (If Walgreens had just carried cobra anti-venom Timmy might be with us today!)

[Kuciwalker]

Why don't you read my posts and notice the relatively strict criteria I described that prevent exactly what you're worrying about from occuring.

[binTravkin]

Have a bong hit and expand your mind enough to realize that once you do that you open the door for both well-meaning idiots and pork barrellers alike to force all sorts of bizarre drugs to be carried at many thousands of pharmacies, simply based on one tearful anecdote in front of a congressional committee.

Buddy, I for one have bought this next morning pill several times.

Guess what - even a small pharmacy employing one person and in the middle of nowhere - small town of approx. 500 people in it had 2 sorts of this drug, not even talking about the big ones who have 3-6 sorts and I've never been said 'we're out of supply, there is no demand' or other similar ****!

And I've expanded my mind enoug to understand that this 'next morning' pill is one of the 1st priority drugs which must be in every pharmacy.

[Cyclotron]

Because he'd rather that you have a bong hit.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Why don't you read my posts and notice the relatively strict criteria I described that prevent exactly what you're worrying about from occuring.

I read the whole thread but somehow missed it. Care to enlighten me?

[Kuciwalker]

They are time-critical. They are essential (abortion is much riskier and more expensive). They are economical to stock.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Btw - do doctors, farmaceuts and nurses in US have to swore the Theocrathus Swore (maybe I mistake his name but I hope you get the point)?

If so, that's it, they're sinners, they (who denied the treatment for the poor woman) broke that swore..

We call it the Hippocratic oath (not to be confused with the hypocritical oaf). Physicians here do swear this iirc, but I don't know about pharmacists and nurses.

[binTravkin]

We call it the Hippocratic oath

Yeah, right.
You see, my thinking was that there are two laws - one that rules a doctor or any medician to follow this Hippocratic oath, the other which allows him religious freedom.

You see that the first is more priorital, at least it should be.
Once a medician breaks this oath, he is not eligible to be medician anymore.
Therefore if a person who would want to study medicine, but knows his religion disables him to do that or other thing, should seek if he can study medicine branch which has nothing to do with it.

It is the same stupidity to allow pharmaceuts to be persons who have some religious prescriptions on how to act in case of rape, as to allow those people who deny abortion to be gynecologists (or how is it called).


Same as if you ordered a professor who believes in Intelligent Design, to teach Theory or Evolution.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They are time-critical. They are essential (abortion is much riskier and more expensive). They are economical to stock.

I'm all for pharmacies which want to do so stocking them, and I personally wouldn't patronize a pharmacy which refused to do so, but it's a slippery slope to force these sometimes tiny and sometimes very specialized retail outlets to do so. Some pharmacies are part of institutions which cater only to men or to children. Let's shame / pressure / boycott the big chains (like Walmart) into carrying them as they are often the only available outlet in rural areas. But imo an attempt to force the issue legislatively is going to increase the likelihood that a pharmacy that doesn't want to carry the drug in the first place is going to be manned by a pharmacist who will find a way to refuse to dispense it anyway, which in the end will result in more wasted time for the patient and higher costs for health care consumers and tax payers as the issue is taken through the court system.

[binTravkin]

(..)slippery slope to force these sometimes tiny(..)

See my post prior, we have this 'slippery slope' in Latvia, nothing really bad has happened thusfar except for some unqualitative medicine shipped.
We have even less money than you there but we manage.
So, where's the problem?

[Patroklos]

farmaceuts

Wow, you can go back to your hole now.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin


Yeah, right.
You see, my thinking was that there are two laws - one that rules a doctor or any medician to follow this Hippocratic oath, the other which allows him religious freedom.

You see that the first is more priorital, at least it should be.
Once a medician breaks this oath, he is not eligible to be medician anymore.
Therefore if a person who would want to study medicine, but knows his religion disables him to do that or other thing, should seek if he can study medicine branch which has nothing to do with it.

It is the same stupidity to allow pharmaceuts to be persons who have some religious prescriptions on how to act in case of rape, as to allow those people who deny abortion to be gynecologists (or how is it called).


Same as if you ordered a professor who believes in Intelligent Design, to teach Theory or Evolution.

Here's a copy of the oath from Wikipedia:

I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

And some more from the same article:

Modern relevance

Several parts of the Oath have been removed or re-worded over the years in various countries, schools, and societies but the Oath still remains one of the few elements of medicine that have remained unchanged. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use this ancient version, which praises pagan gods, advocates teaching of men but not women, and forbids cutting, abortion, and euthanasia.1 Also missing from the ancient Oath and many modern versions are complex, new ethical landmines such as dealing with HMOs, living wills, whether morning-after pills are technically closer to prophylactics or an abortion.

They are

1. To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians. This too has largely disappeared.

2. Not to teach medicine to other people. A physician who has a hand in half-educating quacks or other people not enrolled in an approved medical school would likely lose his or her licence even today.

3. To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in discussions of euthanasia.

4. To never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in the U.S. and most other countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions.

5. To never attempt to induce an abortion. The wide availability of abortions in much of the world suggests that many physicians no longer feel bound by this.

6. To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").

7. To avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too difficult for physicians, and therefore was left for surgeons (specialists). It is interesting how early the value of specialization was recognized. The range of knowledge and skills needed for the range of human problems has always made it impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas.

8. To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting "good purposes," such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.

9. To avoid sexual relationships or other inappropriate entanglements with patients and families. The value of avoiding conflicts of interest has never been questioned.

10. To keep confidential what I learn about my patients. Confidentiality continues to be valued and protected, but governments and third-party payors have occasionally encroached upon it.


Modern alternatives

In the 1970s cultural and social forces induced many American medical schools to abandon the Hippocratic Oath as part of graduation ceremonies, usually substituting a version modified to something considered more politically up to date, or an alternate pledge like the Oath or Prayer of Maimonides.

The Hippocratic Oath has been updated by the Declaration of Geneva. In the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council provides clear modern guidance in the form of its 'duties of a doctor' and 'Good Medical Practice' statements.