[*No rats were harmed in the making of this rant.]
In a few years I will finish pharmacy school and have the honor of explaining to these people why giving Vicodin prescriptions to alcoholics is a bad idea.
[*No rats were harmed in the making of this rant.]
It's the beauty of Federalism.
You are going to be a pharmacist?
Just be honest and transparent. Patient can then decide if they are okay with it.
“She blogs at her self-titled site, Dr. Jen Gunter.”
I went to her site...VERY enlightening. Her most recent entry argues that Romney/Ryan are not pro-life. One of the reasons? They aren’t in favor of MANDATORY organ donation. Not an opt-out instead of opt-in system, but mandatory. That’s bleeping scary. Not unexpected, but bleeping scary.
Plenty of other rot on the site, too.
So, is Dr. Gunter by trying to keep the young MD from practicing her medical specialty guilty of imposing the same self restricting judgement on the young MD that she is accusing her of doing?
i.e. if you don’t agree with my opinion then I will limit your ability to exercise your opinions.
Per her subtitle under her name on her blog:
“WIELDING THE LASSO OF TRUTH”
my addition (as she interprets it!)
Wow, Doktor Gunter fires off loaded question after loaded question. And then tries to pass herself off as logical. How can this doktor be credible in any way?
This physician provides a logically incoherent sequence of consequences to a decision the student has made. One could regress consequences as far back as one wants and never provide a logical causal relationship to explain consequences of decisions patients may or may not choose to make during their lives. It is reasonable that the physician-to-be make clear up-front her reservations so patients can make informed decisions regarding the physicians concerns. The physician-to-be will, in any case, be obligated to conform to standard of care practice.
Ben Stein made a documentary a few years back titled: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The film got a horrible review from Scientific American, once a highly technical science journal that today is a dumbed down political tract with a science theme.
Stein’s movie, which included a lot of interviews with scientists, was about the theory of Intelligent Design and how it has been censored in the academic world in favor of Darwinism. He ties together Darwin, the Godlessness of mainstream science, Eugenics and the Third Reich.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
My hat is off to a Fred Kohl who posted the following comment on the blog:
“Please note, this was not an “intern,” but a STUDENT. Medical students can go on to ANY field of medicine, including a lot that would never, ever have prescribing contraceptives as part of their practice (radiology, dermatology, pathology, etc come to mind). However, for most
medical schools, doing a rotation in OB/GYN is a required part of the curriculum; so, even radiologists, pathologists, etc, need to spend a month or two following around Ob/Gyn’s and seeing what they do. From what Dr. Gunter describes, this was NOT an intern or resident training to be a GYN. SO basically, you, Dr. Gunter, etc, are saying this student should never be a doctor, of any sort, because they don’t agree with Dr. Gunter’s secular humanistic point of view, and opted out of something they find morally problematic? Even if it’s something they’d never have a reason to do in their field of medicine?
For another thing, it’s not entirely clear that oral contraceptives are not abortofaceant. There have been peer-reviewed journal articles that suggest otherwise (http://triggered.stanford.cloc..., and the manufacturer’s label states that inhibition of an implanted embryo is a mechanism of action (which, for many, is morally problematic). While you may not see this as a problem, many do. And thus, if Dr. Gunter’s point of view is followed, NO ONE who sees this as morally problematic should be a doctor,
period. Again, that may not be YOUR point of view, but it the point of view of some people out there.
The American Medical Association (AMA) has long had a standard that if a physician has a moral objection to a treatment requested by a patient, their obligation is to (a) inform the patient that is the case, and (b) tell the patient where they can get the service/treatment they desire. It has also been a long-held paradigm of training that it is unethical for supervising physicians to force students (or residents) under their charge to perform acts that they find morally problematic, and make other arrangements (or care for the patient, themselves). These principles protect the patient from being abandoned, AND allows physicians to not be compelled to do something they find objectionable.
So basically, back to Student X, after graduation might have two things happen. A) She might be a radiologist, dermatologist, whatever, and when someone asks for contraception, she says “I’m a radiologist. I read X-Rays. You need to see a GYN for that.” Or, B), she might go into some primary care field where contraception is practiced by many, and say “Well, I don’t happen to do that. This is why I happen not to; you’re certainly free to pursue a different choice. If you’d still like to pursue that, here’s how/where you could.” (Or even do what Dr. Gunter did mention, and simply have the receptionist tell people when they call for an appointment).
However, under Dr. Gunter’s “ethical” standards and practices, this would-be-physician was compelled to do something she identified as morally objectionable, under threat of losing her ability to have a job!
In the end, this student “lawyered up” because Dr. Gunter (in her crusade to force every medical student she came across to take her moral stance on medicine and life) violated long-held, AMA-sanctioned ethical standards, and in the process violated this woman’s constitutionally protected civil rights.”
Thank you for posting this thread. I enjoy reading intellectual discussions and read the entire lengthy list of blog comments. There were excellent comments and points presented from various perspectives on the issue.
I highly recommend reading the source article and comments for anyone interested in medicine, abortion, religion, individual rights....
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/11/religion-patients-practice-medicine.html
Patients can always ask for a different doctor. It’s not that hard. Let the doctors be the doctors they want to be, and if the patients want a different doctor, patients get switched to different doctors all the time. For all sorts of reasons.
The basic logic that is (illogical) is that “because there are people with many different personal beliefs, YOU therefore have to cave on your own beliefs” - is bullcrap.
Who are they to say you are the one who has to cave? Who are THEY to say because they let everyone’s beliefs slide without question, that THAT is the morally superior view to take? It’s morally the wimpiest, chickening-out position you can take. Bottom line is just because everyone has a right to their own view, that doesn’t automatically make their viewpoint right or equal to yours.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Mugabe, Pol Pot, etc all had their fricking viewpoints. Didn’t mean it was equal to yours, or morally right.
Only the well heeled can buy the high margin goods like cialis...symbicort...retin-a.....androgel....etc
My best pal owns pharmacies...they line up for oxy...hydro....alprazalam
Its just how it is
Legit scripts....you sell
Course now DEA. Nazis....they are not your pal as a pharmacist.....dole out dope
So you run out... they go to walgreens....monthly pain pill allotments per distributor
Which gives chains an advantage
The government could ruin a wet dream with Sofia Vergara...
Aging pop....in pain....spoiled menboys.....anxious if wifey will let them drive the Prius
God bless u....we need u.....but be patient
U will get played.... and tire of it
What if that woman leaves your office without birth control, gets pregnant, and is then beaten to death by her partner as pregnancy puts her at increased risk for domestic violence related homicide?” I persisted
(This is how stupid liberals are) This is false arguement!!
“What if a women leaves your office WITH birth control, her husband finds out and thinks she is having an affair and kills her because of it..”
Stupid Doctor.............
>>The only religion that my patients see me practice is medicine.<<
and
>>. I explained that medical care is not about fulfilling any personal need beyond the need to help.<<
Actually, that’s not correct. Medicine is not a religion. And the attempt to practice “values-free” medicine will fail because, strictly adhered to, it only obscures the values the practitioner has.
There are physicians who will amputate healthy limbs to suit their patients. What religion are they practicing? There are physicians who will provide lethal drugs and treatments to patients who want to end their lives, while others refuse to do so. Are both groups practicing the “religion” of medicine? Are both fulfilling the “need to help”? How shall we decide?
The author makes one minor argument which needs to be addressed: “What if you don’t prescribe artificial contraceptives, the patient gets pregnant, so her ‘partner’ beats her to death?”
What if a man with a broken arm is treated and healed and then beats his partner to death? Is that the physician’s fault too?
More to the purpose and since the sociological data suggests that the incidence of abortion and single parenting varies directly with artificial contraceptive use, and since “the pill” is carcinogenic, AND since a number of physicians write oral contraceptive and ampicillin without informing their patients of the interaction, is the writing physician responsible for abortion, single parent homes, cancer, and pregnancy?
PART of the problem is that an ethical decision is not a matter of “feeling.” “Feelings” aren’t right or wrong; they just are. The “feelings” of Catholic (I assume) OB/Gyn who writes the pill for contraception are irrelevant. But his THINKING is either sound or unsound.
The suggested “need to help” can as validly lead to refusing to prescribe “the pill” as it can to prescribing it. Thoughtful physicians should think about what REAL help is. The question may be a little more difficult than this physician suggests.
You stupid,dumb-a*s doctor, your student knew more than you. Your student knew that doctors treat diseases and illnesses.
Having a penis inserted in your vagina and semen aquirting out of it IS SUPPOSED TO PRODUCE BABIES DURING A WOMAN’S FERTILE PERIOD. That the natural law!
And being pregnant and delivering that baby is NOT A DISEASE OR ILLNESS.
Just treat the diseases and illnesses and we’ll all be fine. No, it’s not the job of a doctor to deconstruct the natural law. Let’s leave that to leftist politicians.
So were supposed to think that the issue of a woman living with a jerk who's willing to kill her can be "fixed" by rendering her ovaries and uterus non-functional? As if he won't just find some other reason to kill her? And *we're* the irrational ones?