Respect Mah Choice!

http://community.livejournal.com/cf_hardcore/4389245.html

funny article on cf hardcore

with some whiners about how the doctor was not respecting "choice"

you've got to be fucking kidding me, since when to the doctors respect the "choice" of people to get sterilized as soon as they turn 18 or however the fuck they WANT to be sterlized, like uterus removal for example? Since when is CHOICE even an option for a lot of people who WISH they were sterile but can't find a goddamned doctor to respect their CHOICE.

I'm sick and fucking tired of the breeder "CHOICE" being the "CHOICE" that needs all the protection.

When are we going to have a crop of doctors out there start saying "hop on the table boy!" when an 18 year old man asks for a vasectomy done TODAY and without discussion?

This is BS and CF knows this. All because we run by Doctor Morals.
These are the same Dr Morals want us to breed into poverty.

We should have doctors who do not have religious background of beilef or bring their moral faith in medical profession. It's their job to to the procedures and help people. Not advise of deny treatment because of 'Gawd's will'.
Doctors should keep their belif at home or don't be a doctor at all.
They should be religious vetted before they apply for medical profession.

Gigabyte, we are seeing the same thing with the pharmacists refusing to dispense some forms of birth control or "morning-after" pills because it goes against their religious beliefs. Those morons should be forced out of the profession and sued for any damages including child support for baybees born as a result of their blatant negligence.

I think that religion and medicine should be as segregated from one another as church and state. I realize there are certain practitioners who incorporate "alternative" medicine, herbs, prayers, etc...in with their practices and that it may include religiosity or something similar, but they identify themselves and can be chosen or over looked when seeking medical care. If an MD or a pharmacist holding himself out as a doctor or pharmacist to the general public, or ANY person who is considered to be in the medical profession at large and who is responsible for patient care, decisions regarding patient care or treatment, SHOULD NOT be able to deny care based on his fucking religious views or "convictions".

IF a procedure or prescription is legal, has been legally obtained/prescribed, then it should be filled or the procedure carried out if it is MEDICALLY sound and REASONABLY safe for that particular patient. THE END. Doctors have NO business denying sterilizations or birth control to an adult patient based on his "morals", or religious feelings or beliefs. A pharmacist has NO BUSINESS doing ANYTHING, but filling legally obtained prescriptions and quite frankly, other than potential adverse drug interactions or info regarding the prescribed drug which would be considered a STANDARD thing to share with the patient for medical purposes, he should have NO COMMENT regarding his "feelings" on the prescription as he is NOT a doctor NOR is he that particular patient's doctor.

This business of pharmcists who give speeches to patients when they pick up birth control pills about how it's an "abortifacient" and other such nonsense, have NO IDEA why that woman is taking that drug because he is NOT the treating physician. For all he knows, the woman is a nun and has a problem with her menstrual cycle, hormone fluctuations, endometriosis, etc........and this prescription has NOTHING to do with birth control as she is abstinent. Again though, this is NONE of his fucking business. This subject of medical moral objectors really pisses me off. I wish I was on the pill so I could purposely go to one of these bastards and make a scene. I would ALSO file a lawsuit for public humiliation and any medical reason I could tack on as well.

What if people in the medical profession, such as a paramedic or an ER doc, takes it upon himself not to perform CPR, for instance, because they morally feel that it's "God's will" if someone dies????? What if a pharmacist has a moral objection to certain cancer medications because they were tested on animals, so when granny rolls up to the window to get her prescription that will keep her cancer cell count down, he "just says no"? Seriously, this list could go on and on and on and on. What if he is a Scientology pharmacist who doesn't "believe" in anti psychotic drugs and stamps DENIED on a paranoid schizophrenic's prescription? Is he then responsible for him killing his whole famblee over the weekend?

Most ALL over the counter cleaners
Tobacco products
Tobacco cessation products
Cold medicine
OTC birth control
Diabetic prescriptions/supplies
Cosmetics
Pest control products
Beer/wine
Candy
Pain medication
Antibiotics
Shaving accessories
Baybee Formula

Just a short list of stuff that Walgreen's carries that a cashier, pharmacist, owner, etc......MIGHT could object to being a party to sell to people based on religious or moral grounds. Will we one day have to make 8 or 10 stops at various places to buy our medical and everyday household supplies, depending on WHO will sell it? That is what this will become if it isn't nipped in the bud IMMEDIATELY.

Actually most Drs. could give a crap over why you want to be sterilized and are not refusing to do it over moral judgments. They are not willing to take on the legal uncertainty of someone changing their mind. YOU know you won't change your mind but there is no way for the Dr. to know that for a fact. Patients lie to their Drs all the time and Drs are not willing to do things that have the potential to come back and bite them in the ass years down the road.

Respecting someone's choice to be sterilized and actually doing the surgery are two very different things. Would you yourselves be willing to engage voluntarily in an act that could turn out to cost you hundred of thousands of dollars down the road?

DM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually most Drs. could give a crap over why you
> want to be sterilized and are not refusing to do
> it over moral judgments. They are not willing to
> take on the legal uncertainty of someone changing
> their mind. YOU know you won't change your mind
> but there is no way for the Dr. to know that for a
> fact. Patients lie to their Drs all the time and
> Drs are not willing to do things that have the
> potential to come back and bite them in the ass
> years down the road.
>
> Respecting someone's choice to be sterilized and
> actually doing the surgery are two very different
> things. Would you yourselves be willing to engage
> voluntarily in an act that could turn out to cost
> you hundred of thousands of dollars down the road?


That may be true of doctors in "normal" areas, but down in Alabama when I started begging to be sterilized at age 22 and continued to do so up until age 40 or so, they said no for religious/moral reasons, or that's the reason that most gave. The "changing your mind" thing might be true if the patient is 22, but at age 40, when there would be medical complications should a pregnancy occur and they STILL say no, you can bet it's for moral reasons. They did either add (if they cited religion, which most did) that I "might change my mind", up until I was about 35. Then the actual truth came out with my original doctor. He said it was his "God given gift" to bring baybees into the world, not to prevent them since God created them before they were even born. Then he spouted off the scripture about how God knows how many hairs are on your head before you are born crap.

They have this "rule" down there that they ALL parrot without even thinking. "Only if you are past age 35 or already have given birth to two children", which is not even entirely true. The ONLY time that they will actually perform a sterilization is IMMEDIATELY after the birth of the AT LEAST second child, so that way they are not scheduling any "procedures" specifically for the purpose of sterilization. I was told that by a long time physician's assistant. I believe this is true because my sister's doctor told her that he would only do a tubal while she was still on the table from the birth, when she brought up how she wanted to be sterilized after the second kyd. They do NOT want to be associated with performing sterilizations either for their religious reasons or because of the religious perception from the public in their area.

So, maybe it's THEIR moral/religious beliefs or they don't want their fundie patients to hear about it and lose business, but during the years between 1985-2003, there was nary a doctor in the southern half of the great state of Alabama who was willing to perform a tubal ligation on me, INCLUDING abortion clinics. The last time I inquired I was over 40 years of age with no live births on my chart, so "changing my mind" was out of the question. I might add that now that I live in Kentucky, I have been told that no doctor within a 100 mile radius will do one either, so I suppose it's a Southern-Baptist thing.

"Only if you are past age 35 or already have given birth to two children", """"


Listen, I live in California, the state of medical marijuana and hippies, and when I went to get sterilized I was just about 35 and had never had kyds of course. The doctor delayed delayed delayed then tried to talk me out of it, finally after me standing firm and even getting hardcore cf in the office "i hate famblies" (yes i said famblies lol) and watching her freak and cringe, she presented me with a STACK, we are talking a STACK of about 20 pages of legal documents to sign before she would do the surgery.

In. Liberal. California.

Just goes to show that there is very little difference between the fundy of Alabama and the uber-liberal hip-moo of california, they BOTH want to FORCE women and men into breeding.

Thank you, invisible sky wizard for postponing Caribou Barbie.

Here we go with the conscience bullshit again. When you enter a health care profession, whether it is nursing, medicine, pharmacy, dentistry or whatever, you sign on to a code of ethics that has three very basic elements: a) primum non nocere (first do no harm); b) respect for individual choices; and c) do only that which is good for the patient. These three are NOT independent of each other.

Breaking them down:

a) Primum non nocere - I cannot, by commission or omission, condone anything that will harm my patient in any way. This means very simply that I am an advocate and guardian of their health.

b) Respect for individual choices - I have the incumbent and integral duty of laying out all treatment options for the patient, including the relevant risks and benefits of each option and then allowing the patient (or authorized representative) make an informed choice based on my duty to counsel and my own recommendations. If I am unable or unwilling to perform the treatment they requested, I am bound to recommend another physician or health professional who will consider their request. Note that I am NOT obligated to provide the services if I feel there is any risk to the patient. Equally, the patient is free to choose another physician or health care provider.

c) Advance only good for the patient - I may not recommend any treatment that would lack a therapeutic benefit for the patient. While this seems like an extension of the first, it means that I cannot recommend a placebo without substantial belief that it would work.

I have no idea why many of my professional brethren feel it necessary to browbeat patients into accepting only their recommendations, but it is a breach of professional ethics if you fail to recommend another practitioner when you are unable/unwilling to provide the services. Period.

In some of these cases where these pharmacists are refusing to fill birth control pill prescriptions due to their moral objections, they have referred them elsewhere or advised them to come back later when another pharmacist is on duty. If this was a one man operation like "Mr. Friendly's druggist and bait shop", while it might be annoying, it's happening with greater regularity at Walgreens, Walmart, Rite Aid, etc......."Mr Friendly" owns his place and can CHOOSE to sell (or not)whatever he pleases, UNLIKE these large corporations. I do not think that ANY store should keep a product in stock, or ordering it a standard practice, and then because ONE EMPLOYEE happens to have a personal objection to handling the product, selling it, filling it, etc......he simply can turn a patient away. If the company, as a whole, routinely sells the product then ALL employees who have a hand in stocking it, selling it, ordering it, filling it, handing it to the customer, or even assisting them with a bag containing it to their car, should be REQUIRED to do so or be fired.

I don't think this is the same thing as changing doctors, because you are talking about lost time, gas, possibly a higher price, inconvenience, and in some of these cases;Public humiliation while the pharmacist gives his anti-abortion literature to the customer/patient, or refuses to fill it and makes it known why to anyone who happens to be standing in the pharmacy area. In addition, sometimes Walmart is the only game in town and the next pharmacy might be 30 miles or more away. What about the woman who gets auto refills and stops in the day after her last pill is gone as always and they "just say NO"? If that happens on a Friday afternoon, it's possible that she will not have any pills for 3 days or more. Never mind that she can "just say no" to sex or use something else, it could screw up her ENTIRE cycle and cause pain and suffering unnecessarily, not to mention the inconvenience. Then there are women in rural areas who simply have no where else to go and no way to get to the next town for a refill, and they shouldn't HAVE to either.

If pharmacists want to hide behind their little moral objection clause, then bully for them. However, they should NOT be hired at places of businesses who carry these products and if they already work there they can either be transferred to the garden center, ladies' wear, sporting goods or wherever, they can open their own drug store, or they can quit or be fired, OR they can do their damned jobs which does NOT include making moral judgements on the customers. Another thing, they are receiving a paycheck from Walmart, so are'nt they indirectly participating in the sale of these HORRIBLE abortifacients? If they don't like ANY drug for "moral" reasons, then they do not have to fill it. They don't seem to mind filling Viagra prescriptions for MR Jones, but in the next breath they will deny MRS Jones her birth control pills.

As far as I know, Kim, all of the big chain stores and pharmacy divisions of big-box retail stores have policies requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions unless there is a problem like a drug interaction. None of the big chains like Walgreens, CVS or RiteAid will put up with that crap. I don't know any pharmacists who would ever act in that manner, but the ones who do should look for work in a place where they will never have to come across prescriptions for contraception.

Dr. D, the fundy pharmacists have been doing this for years to chronic pain patients. A few years back I knew about a lady with CANCER and a legit script for oxycontin from her dr that was detained and ARRESTED at a big box pharmacy because the pharmacist felt the prescription was fake (he did not call the dr to ask) and instead of calling the dr, just called the cops. The cancer lady was put in jail for 24 hrs without any medications at all until she could be bailed out. There was a huge lawsuit against the chain pharmacy from her lawyers. But no amount of money can pay back a person dying of cancer that's locked in a jail cell for a legitimate prescription.

That's another reason we have medical cannabis here in california, it's more private and the people running the medical dispensaries do not judge, everyone with a verified doctors letter gets cannabis, period. Many chronic pain patients, tired of dealing with pharmacists giving the stink eye or outright delaying or denying medications prefer our medical cannabis system over the pharm drugs just for those reasons of respect and privacy.

Seems to me that fundie pharmacists, like all other fundies, are a tad confused about their right of authority. Since when is a pharmacist, a doctor, a teacher, a policeman, a judge, or any other top professional 'public servant' allowed to bend their authority in parochial directions? Fact is, it's against all professional codes of conduct and very much against the public interest. They ought to be sacked on the spot, each and every one. Fact is, they should've been preachers or pastors or priests if they wanted to inflict their big-daddy-in-the-sky beliefs on the public.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

http://www.pfli.org/


Above is the "Pharmacists for Life International" site which is the organization that stands behind the pharmacists exercising the "conscience clause" in their code of ethics. This is the basis in their profession to DENY patients certain forms of prescription birth control, including the pill, due to a personal/religious/moral convictions. This website is very informative and gives an inside view of how they feel about it, news, new laws and legislation, and various cases of how they have been fired, etc.......

From The Pope:
"It is not possible to anesthetize the conscience, for example, when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone's life... I invite your federation [of pharmacists] to consider conscientious objection which is a right that must be recognized for your profession so you can avoid collaborating, directly or indirectly, in the supply of products which have clearly immoral aims, for example abortion or euthanasia..."

-- Pope Benedict XVI, address to Catholic Pharmacists, 29 Oct 2007 AD



Keep in mind that they think that the pill is an abortifacient, which is why they are often refusing to dispense it. There are also dozens of cases of individual pharmacists at big chains who have exercised their moral objection and refused to sell even the pill in some cases and the morning after pill is nearly out of the question to try and get. Can you inagine having been raped and spent the night at the hospital getting the sexual assault kit done, getting a script for the morning after pill, going to Walmart and being JUDGED about it by a pharmacist? I can't begin to imagine that and I hope I never have to experience it.


Notice where The Pope says, "...stop an embryo from implanting....." That is CLEARLY speaking of the 3% of the cases where the pill doesn't stop the egg and sperm from becoming a zygote in the first place and ends up basically expelling it from the uterine wall BEFORE it can attach. Once this study became public knowledge a few years ago is when this nonsense started up. NOW the pill is an abortifacient as would be most barrier methods in some cases like the IUD, gels and spermacides might let one of the guys pass on through but expel it in the tubes or in the baybee oven too. They may just refuse to sell birth control AT ALL in the future, if this is allowed to continue.

nowhiggers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. D, the fundy pharmacists have been doing this
> for years to chronic pain patients. A few years
> back I knew about a lady with CANCER and a legit
> script for oxycontin from her dr that was detained
> and ARRESTED at a big box pharmacy because the
> pharmacist felt the prescription was fake (he did
> not call the dr to ask) and instead of calling the
> dr, just called the cops. The cancer lady was put
> in jail for 24 hrs without any medications at all
> until she could be bailed out. There was a huge
> lawsuit against the chain pharmacy from her
> lawyers. But no amount of money can pay back a
> person dying of cancer that's locked in a jail
> cell for a legitimate prescription.
>
> That's another reason we have medical cannabis
> here in california, it's more private and the
> people running the medical dispensaries do not
> judge, everyone with a verified doctors letter
> gets cannabis, period. Many chronic pain patients,
> tired of dealing with pharmacists giving the stink
> eye or outright delaying or denying medications
> prefer our medical cannabis system over the pharm
> drugs just for those reasons of respect and
> privacy.


I have the same kinds of problems with my professional peers that Dr. Dan probably does on many medical and nursing issues. Some of the older nurses are cunts when it comes to controlled substances, and will cluck and moo over an 89 year old terminal cancer patient getting "hooked" on pain relievers. Those old warhorses are being put out to pasture, but you still find them. If I *ever* had to go back into nursing practice, I would choose hospice nursing, where compassion and empathy for the patient are forms of art.

You tell us, Dr. Dan, have you ever had problems with any narcotic prescriptions you have written? I would bet that you have. I will not pick on pharmacists because I know most of them are professionals like the rest of us just trying to do their jobs, but it seems they are almost as bad as the older RNs and LVNs when it comes to the narcotics horseshit.

married with rabbits Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I don't get is if you sign a form stating you
> will never sue over having chosen to be
> sterilized, then why isn't that enough!!!
>
> My husband wanted a surgery done a certain way a
> few years ago and since it wasn't standard, the
> doc wrote up a form basically stating my husband
> would refuse to sue if he changed his mind after
> the surgery was done. He signed, nuff said. He was
> an easygoing doc who worked with us. Hopefully he
> will do the same when it comes time for my husband
> to get a vasectomy.


Somehow, all common sense and the foundation of contract law go out the window when it comes to f'in babies. Look how many of these damned sows come back years after giving a baby up for adoption, wanting it back, and the f'in courts give these whores the children despite the fact that they are bonded with the adoptive family.

When i was in the hospital for surgery once i had a fundy nurse (with jebus buttons all over her uniform) stand over my bed with the percocet in her hand and tell me how she wasn't going to give it to me. lol. i called the hospital admin and dr and filed a complaint. at the time i was pagan and had my witchcraft books with me at the hospital, she saw that and tried to deny me my pain meds.

anyhow... many people that suffer in chronic pain are so thankful for the medical cannabis system we have here in california. no nurse ratchet to cluck and moo about your pain medication, no pharmacist to give the stink eye, just some nice cannabis friendly docs in the state who are sick of the rigmarole with the DEA for trying to treat pain patients with standard narcotics.

i'm not going to let these fucks kill me with NSAIDS for my arthritis like they did to my 83 year old aunt who was in a wheelchair for her arthritis.

Lots of elderly with severe arthritis feel the same way. I see them in the dispensary all the time. Go ahead grandpa! Have a brownie! Makes me happy to see the old folks up and moving and having a good time on their medicated brownie treats.






CFBitchfromLA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I have the same kinds of problems with my
> professional peers that Dr. Dan probably does on
> many medical and nursing issues. Some of the
> older nurses are cunts when it comes to controlled
> substances, and will cluck and moo over an 89 year
> old terminal cancer patient getting "hooked" on
> pain relievers. Those old warhorses are being put
> out to pasture, but you still find them. If I
> *ever* had to go back into nursing practice, I
> would choose hospice nursing, where compassion and
> empathy for the patient are forms of art.
>
> You tell us, Dr. Dan, have you ever had problems
> with any narcotic prescriptions you have written?
> I would bet that you have. I will not pick on
> pharmacists because I know most of them are
> professionals like the rest of us just trying to
> do their jobs, but it seems they are almost as bad
> as the older RNs and LVNs when it comes to the
> narcotics horseshit.