NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/emergency.contraception.ap/index.html

Apparently there is actually a debate as to whether medical professionals should be required to actually be ethical and inform a victim of all medical measures available.

Don't get raped in Colorado? Well thats the plan...

As for that story: You mean *gasp* people may be shown every possible option and then choose for themselves!? Thats and affront to the democracy and freedom this country was founded on! Oh wait...

We will not tell you about abortion. You must bear the child of the rapist, in order to show you that you were NOT PURE ENOUGH!!! [/sarcasm]

I still can't believe this is an issue! Abortion was legal in the US ten years before it was in Canada and you guys still can't deal with it?

On a somewhat related note, do any of these Catholic hospitals recieve any government funds?

It's a cut and dry issue, if you are providing medical treatment you must do so in the best intrests of the patient. Religion should have nothing to do with it.

I still can't believe this is an issue! Abortion was legal in the US ten years before it was in Canada and you guys still can't deal with it?

On a somewhat related note, do any of these Catholic hospitals recieve any government funds?

Religous "charities" now get funds. If they don't, it's only a matter of time....

Religous "charities" now get funds. If they don't, it's only a matter of time....

Then they have to uphold standards of federal health care. If that requires access to Plan B, abortion or effective contraception, so be it.

It's a cut and dry issue, if you are providing medical treatment you must do so in the best intrests of the patient. Religion should have nothing to do with it.

I'm 100% here with you. Problem is when you deal with the xtian conservatives you gotta talk cash. For all their godliness, they only understand the money.

Hmm, Aside from the normal arguments in these cases, ask a few married men if they'd be willing to:-

1) Raise their wife's rapists baby as their own.

or

2) support their wife as she took her rapists baby to full term so it could be adopted.

If only men got pregnant then this wouldnt be an issue :mad:

I hear Colorado's planning to stone women who get raped for being promiscuous.

I hear Colorado's planning to stone women who get raped for being promiscuous.

Only if they go to Colorado University.

I still can't believe this is an issue! Abortion was legal in the US ten years before it was in Canada and you guys still can't deal with it?

On a somewhat related note, do any of these Catholic hospitals recieve any government funds?

There are still people here fighting so that we don't even have birth control. They beleave that everyone has to live by thier rules. It really is sickening.

We will not tell you about abortion. You must bear the child of the rapist, in order to show you that you were NOT PURE ENOUGH!!! [/sarcasm]

Meanwhile, this isn't even referring to abortion - but to the morning after pill, which some religious groups feel is the same thing, but technically is not.

Don't get raped in Colorado!

Alright. What state should I be raped in? I hope it's Maine. I've never been there before.

Alright. What state should I be raped in? I hope it's Maine. I've never been there before.

If it has to happen, you should hope it happens in a state where doctors are actually legally required to act in an ethical manner.

If it has to happen, you should hope it happens in a state where doctors are actually legally required to act in an ethical manner.

Well specifically, which states are most rape-friendly?

If it has to happen, you should hope it happens in a state where doctors are actually legally required to act in an ethical manner.
Now we get to the crux of the matter. What is ethical? In anything government funded it is what the goverment says it is as long as it does not violate the patients' rights. In a private practice, however, it is what the doctor orr owner of the practice says it is, as long as it does not violate the patients' rights.

Then they have to uphold standards of federal health care. If that requires access to Plan B, abortion or effective contraception, so be it.

The whole point of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives was to allow organizations that discriminate based on their own beliefs to recieve government funds. I.E. drug treament programs that just convert you to their church in exchange for telling the judge that you're cured became eligible for government grants.

Well specifically, which states are most rape-friendly?

From whose perspective? The rapist or the victim? They definitely would have different standards. *nod*

Hrrmmm... with the constant controversy surrounding it, a woman would have to live under a very large, dark, rock in an isolated area with no radio, television, or printed media for the last thirty years or so not to know that Abortion is available, legal, and safe-even without the Doctor saying so. What's the problem here??? Are you afraid that the ladies of the Mountain States don't know about something that saturates the airwaves about every two months??
Is there no "Planned Parenthood" in Colorado, which is a group much more likely to have direct contact with a rape victim than even the Police?
Women's Groups? HELLO??? Isn't that the sort of thing they are supposed to do when they aren't filing lawsuits or lobbying state legislators?

You don't 'need a law' for every single contingency that might improbably happen under the most extremely unlikely circumstances-if she's getting medical treatment, even if the doctor elects not to tell her (for hospital policy reasons) she's got newspapers, magazines, radio, television... friends? The odds are, if she doesn't know Abortion is available, then she likely belongs to a religious sect that would shun her for it anyway (and said sects aren't real common in the Rocky Mountain States.)

From whose perspective? The rapist or the victim? They definitely would have different standards. *nod*
No, you're wrong on both counts.
From the perspective of a completely objective rational outsider.

At least I think that was it. Now that I think of it, it might actually have been from the perspective of an orange juicing-machine. I'm not quite sure.

Hrrmmm... with the constant controversy surrounding it, a woman would have to live under a very large, dark, rock in an isolated area with no radio, television, or printed media for the last thirty years or so not to know that Abortion is available, legal, and safe-even without the Doctor saying so. What's the problem here??? Are you afraid that the ladies of the Mountain States don't know about something that saturates the airwaves about every two months??
Is there no "Planned Parenthood" in Colorado, which is a group much more likely to have direct contact with a rape victim than even the Police?
Women's Groups? HELLO??? Isn't that the sort of thing they are supposed to do when they aren't filing lawsuits or lobbying state legislators?

You don't 'need a law' for every single contingency that might improbably happen under the most extremely unlikely circumstances-if she's getting medical treatment, even if the doctor elects not to tell her (for hospital policy reasons) she's got newspapers, magazines, radio, television... friends? The odds are, if she doesn't know Abortion is available, then she likely belongs to a religious sect that would shun her for it anyway (and said sects aren't real common in the Rocky Mountain States.)

The point is, if we allow religion to dictate the medical profession's politics, then where do we stop? "Well, you're not legally required to tell her she can have an abortion." "Well, you're legally not allowed to tell her she can have an abortion." "Well, you're legally not allowed to give an abortion." "Well, you're legally not allowed to sell morning-after pills in pharmacies."

No, you're wrong on both counts.
From the perspective of a completely objective rational outsider.

At least I think that was it. Now that I think of it, it might actually have been from the perspective of an orange juicing-machine. I'm not quite sure.

I doubt there are any completely objective rational outsiders.I think that people either find rape shocking and offensive, which is not very objective, or they find it amusing. Which isn't rational.

Personally, I find male rape amusing, and female rape offensive.

Which means I'm neither objective nor rational. But I'm okay with that. :)

I doubt there are any completely objective rational outsiders.I think that people either find rape shocking and offensive, which is not very objective, or they find it amusing. Which isn't rational.

Personally, I find male rape amusing, and female rape offensive.

Which means I'm neither objective nor rational. But I'm okay with that. :)

Rape is no laughing matter..... unless you're raping a clown.

Rape is no laughing matter..... unless you're raping a clown.

:eek:

Now we get to the crux of the matter. What is ethical? In anything government funded it is what the goverment says it is as long as it does not violate the patients' rights. In a private practice, however, it is what the doctor orr owner of the practice says it is, as long as it does not violate the patients' rights.

Ethics is not decided by individual doctors. If it were, any doctor could do whatever they wanted to a patient.

An ethical doctor makes all available treatments known to a patient, as well as their professional opinion on which should be used. They ensure that the patient understands the risks and benefits of the treatments which are available to them.

Saying that something like this could possibly be ethical is *exactly* the same thing as saying it would be ethical for a doctor who had a patient with a badly broken leg to omit the fact that it could be treated by inserting a rod and instead tell the patient that their only recourse is amputation.

Hrrmmm... with the constant controversy surrounding it, a woman would have to live under a very large, dark, rock in an isolated area with no radio, television, or printed media for the last thirty years or so not to know that Abortion is available, legal, and safe-even without the Doctor saying so. What's the problem here??? Are you afraid that the ladies of the Mountain States don't know about something that saturates the airwaves about every two months??

You people have trouble reading, don't you. This isn't about abortion - it is about emergency contraception - something that all people do not know exists.

Is there no "Planned Parenthood" in Colorado, which is a group much more likely to have direct contact with a rape victim than even the Police?

Most women who immediately report rape go to a hospital, not to Planned Parenthood - and emergency contraception is only effective within a couple of days after sex.

You don't 'need a law' for every single contingency that might improbably happen under the most extremely unlikely circumstances-if she's getting medical treatment, even if the doctor elects not to tell her (for hospital policy reasons) she's got newspapers, magazines, radio, television... friends? The odds are, if she doesn't know Abortion is available, then she likely belongs to a religious sect that would shun her for it anyway (and said sects aren't real common in the Rocky Mountain States.)

If you actually were talking about emergency contraception - which is the subject here - you would realize that a woman would have to know about it immediately for it to be effective.

Meanwhile, it is unethical for any doctor to omit viable treatment options when discussing the treatment of a patient.

:rolleyes: I am really getting tired of catholics pushing thier agenda's on others like this. My thoughts are that a woman should know all options avalible to her. The woman never deserved/wanted to be raped so don't claim "she dressed as a slut so she had it coming" bullshit. Why should she be further punished by not knowing or having the option to abort then having to carry the baby full term and go through the pain of childbirth? Helping people my ass.

Catholic hospital=Catholic Rules. The bulk of the funding is from the Church. Most places with more than ten thousand people have a municipal clinic that isn't a Catholic Hospital anyway-and most Ambulance Rides take you to that one, not the Catholic Hospitals (at least, most places I've lived...) or the Private ones. Again, though-I don't know very many women who don't know about RU-486 or other substances that work as "Emergency Contraception", and few large towns have plentiful lack of outside contact. The real problem is $$$, but that's because almost any drug that has such a use is going to command a price.
it's Elective Medicine, there comes a point where you say "I'm a Taxpayer, I don't need to pay for that."

As for Mr. Bush's "Office of Faith-based Initiatives", it won't last past 2008 unless someone just like him is chosen by election to sit in the Oval Orifice.
it's like some of the other crap programmes over the years initiated by president Clinton-funds directed to groups like the Sierra Club, or Greenpeace.
It is, in other words, a Temporary Problem with short-term effects, that can, with proper handling, be used to keep his hand-picked successors out of the job.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/emergency.contraception.ap/index.html

Apparently there is actually a debate as to whether medical professionals should be required to actually be ethical and inform a victim of all medical measures available.
Of course, there is no mention about men getting raped here. You do know that 1 in 7 men are rapped in their lifetimes, right?

Of course, there is no mention about men getting raped here. You do know that 1 in 7 men are rapped in their lifetimes, right?

Rapped, or raped? Both are awful. :p

Rapped, or raped? Both are awful. :p
Let's not quibble about spelling.

Let's not quibble about spelling.

Okay, I know what you meant.

Still, it touches on an important point. One leaves you feeling violated and traumatized. The other is forced sex. :D

Okay, I know what you meant.

Still, it touches on an important point. One leaves you feeling violated and traumatized. The other is forced sex. :D
Didn't know there was a difference.

Er... is there anyone out there who actually has somethig to say on the topic?

;)

Er... is there anyone out there who actually has somethig to say on the topic?

;)

Generally speaking, I prefer to dance around the periphery of the topic, choosing not to approach too closely, yet not drifting far off enough to be accused of hijacking.

Catholic hospital=Catholic Rules. The bulk of the funding is from the Church. Most places with more than ten thousand people have a municipal clinic that isn't a Catholic Hospital anyway-and most Ambulance Rides take you to that one, not the Catholic Hospitals (at least, most places I've lived...) or the Private ones. Again, though-I don't know very many women who don't know about RU-486 or other substances that work as "Emergency Contraception", and few large towns have plentiful lack of outside contact. The real problem is $$$, but that's because almost any drug that has such a use is going to command a price.
it's Elective Medicine, there comes a point where you say "I'm a Taxpayer, I don't need to pay for that."

Freedom of religion does not apply to institutions like hospitals - which are covered under the regulations on medical practice. Hospital=Medical rules.

Of course, there is no mention about men getting raped here. You do know that 1 in 7 men are rapped in their lifetimes, right?

Yes, I am aware of that, but emergency contraception wouldn't help them, now would it?

I do understnad the right for a person to refuse to administer the morning after pill. The pill is designed to prevent contraception, the morning after pill to abort an embrio (or a potential one).

But, and hospital that refuses to have someone available at all times to administer this pill is not a hospital, it's a church with a first aid wing.

How would people feel is the Vehoves(so) witnesses set up a hospital but refused blood transfusions to it's patients?

It's the same principle of beliefs and practices.

i dont see so many of you defending the catholic church if they were to addopt such schemes.

(some poeple might view this as in bad taste since the pope died earlier, but i dont think so. In fact i view the pope as a false idol, especially since there are so manystatues to him around the globe, which is, of course, against the 1st commandment)

I still can't believe this is an issue! Abortion was legal in the US ten years before it was in Canada and you guys still can't deal with it?

On a somewhat related note, do any of these Catholic hospitals recieve any government funds?
Well, it wouldn't matter. The government can't violate their religious conscience and force them to give contraceptives or abortions pills just as the government can't ban secular hospitals from handing out contraceptives or doing abortions. Its a religious freedom issue. If you want contraceptives, don't go to a Catholic Hospital. There are lots of secular public hospitals throughout America and there are plenty of them in Colorado.