Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.
A Woman Was Denied Medication for Being of ‘Childbearing Age.’ She Just Sued the Hospital
3 years ago by stopthatgirl7 to c/news
harmonea 128 points 3 years ago
I don't understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods -- shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever -- that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter's side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.
Doctors are held to a different standard because... the mental gymnastics say it's totally fine when it's a woman being denied service I guess?
If these healthcare "professionals" only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.
Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.
afraid_of_zombies 3 points 3 years ago
Don't get it either. I am sure it is quite possible to be a doctor and not be involved with abortion. I am an engineer and I have strong objections to working on military stuff, so I don't work for military contractors. Other ones don't so they do.
Dark_Arc 0 points 3 years ago
I'm going to try again (and you know, maybe I'm just wrong but here's what I'm seeing).
There are doctors in the medical field already, with specific beliefs that may be sexist but are not generally speaking, sexist people. There is also a shortage of doctors.
Do we really want to throw out an entire doctor (that takes years of training) because they don't want to do a particular procedure?
There is a secondary point of when is refusal to do a procedure sexism or religion vs genuine medical objection to the harms caused (in their medical opinion).
There is an additional point where I fundamentally think legal compulsion is a terrible tool in a free society and should be used as an absolute last resort.
When it comes down to something as sensitive as medicine, I'd rather my doctor be on board or I find a different doctor vs my doctor being compelled to do something they don't believe in or outright having no doctor to go to because ... there aren't enough.
There's also the possibility (and it seems like in the video) that the Roe v Wade issue is also making this doctor far more skiddish even in New York State. We really haven't heard his side and that really is an important perspective.
Surely there's somebody else this woman could see as well? There's no way this guy is the only one that knows about these medications and maybe another doctor would like to use a different medication anyways. There are plenty of other cases of doctors saying "you're fine" to people regardless of gender or sex and them needing to see a different doctor before getting the right treatment.
I originally went after your analogy because it's so beyond comparison. You might as well make an analogy between a rocket scientist and a scientologist. There are so many layers of nuance here. Driving politics into medical decisions is part of how we got here ... is adding more complex "do I need a lawyer (to do what I believe is the best practice)" to a doctor's practice really a good idea?
That presumably kind of worked for racism but I still can't imagine the truly racist doctors were giving their best service; like we didn't just say "you must see black patients or leave medicine" and then the problems were fixed. There are plenty of black people alive today that still distrust the institution of medicine -- including my neighbor who refused to get vaccinated because he doesn't trust doctors -- because of what's been done in the past.
harmonea 22 points 3 years ago
Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they're used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.
So let's ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These "professionals" should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.
bassomitron 97 points 3 years ago
No, they should have their medical license revoked. Doctors have to swear an oath to not intentionally or knowingly harm a patient for a reason, because their well being is their top priority. If they can't adhere to that oath because of arbitrary religious/philosophical/political/whatever beliefs, then they have no business being a medical professional.
ChunkMcHorkle 54 points 3 years ago
deleted by creator
somethingsnappy 6 points 3 years ago
Your word salad is confusing.
TopRamenBinLaden 10 points 3 years ago
I agree. A doctor putting their own religious beliefs over established medical science and the well being of their patient is completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
medgremlin 8 points 3 years ago
Unfortunately, the original Hippocratic oath that many doctors swear to includes a line about not performing abortions or prescribing abortifacients.
It is my understanding that, at the time that version of the oath was written, that was less a prohibition of abortion and more a matter of pregnancy and abortion being under the purview of midwives, not physicians.
To that point, I wrote my own medical oath that I will hold to because I think that things like autonomy, free choice, and dignity in death are actually important.
TopRamenBinLaden 3 points 3 years ago
Thank you for clarifying, I did not know that about the Hippocratic Oath. I think it's really cool that you wrote your own Oath. Thank you for your empathy and service to humankind.
lolcatnip 91 points 3 years ago
Based on what I've read in r/childfree, it's far more common than not for doctors to prioritize the needs of a hypothetical husband or fetus over those of a real live woman. I've also known someone in real life who couldn't get a painful medical condition fixed until her mid 30s because the treatment caused sterility. The problem goes way beyond religion; it's more a matter of institutional sexism and the hubris of doctors thinking they know better than any woman who says she doesn't want kids.
BeaPep 47 points 3 years ago
I've been to several different OBs trying to solve my almost-two-year-long-period and every single one of them refuses to do anything for me. I'm just "too young" for them to stop me from having kids one day. And giving me a hysterectomy is "too dangerous" and "risky" when my life isn't in danger. It doesn't matter that I've tried everything they suggest. Try it again!! It's so fucking tiring.
I've just given up paying the constant doctor fees to see asshole doctors anymore and just figure I'll either stop having the problem eventually or I'll be "old enough" (40 maybe?) to finally get surgery... It's all a nightmare, especially in the religious south...
ikidd 20 points 3 years ago
I'd check with a women's group or Planned Parenthood for a doctor recommendation. They might know some sane ones.
Having been married to a sane one, I do know they're spectacularly gunshy of affecting a woman's fertility because it can get them sued into the ground if they do something like that to someone that someday wants kids. And patients lie, so when you tell a doctor that you don't want kids, they assume you're going to change your mind. And I'm not sure if there's a disclosure you can sign that would hold up in court if you changed your mind one day. So there's that.
BeaPep 1 point 3 years ago
I might try this! I haven't tried Planned Parenthood yet.
Honestly I feel like I've tried everything to make them listen!! I've brought my wife with me to the appointments!! I've mentioned that I first brought up hysterectomies at 17 when I suffered from multi-week periods! I've mentioned I'm asexual and that I'm married and never even had sex so I don't see kids in the future!
But I do get that doctors have to worry about the liars. I can get why it's important to have the option to sue a doctor who wronged you but I wish there really was an intensive disclosure you could just do rather than run around until you find a doctor who's willing to trust you not to regret it. It sucks all around.
switches 18 points 3 years ago
my friend was having enormous clots come out during her horrifically long periods, losing the amount of blood that was actually making her anemic and causing her problems, and they still didn't want to do anything because she was only in her 30s. thankfully she finally found a doctor who was like 'wow yeah you need that thing taken out of there its killing you' and she got it removed, but the fact she had to go through all that stress and pain to find anyone who would help her is absurd.
PrincessLeiasCat 15 points 3 years ago
Can you find a doctor near you in the list in the r/childfree sidebar? That’s how I found mine, and she’s great. Good luck to you, I hope things turn out better. I’m sorry this is a thing :(
medgremlin 14 points 3 years ago
r/childfree has a list of providers by state that regularly provide hysterectomies. I recommend checking it out, and when you call for an appointment, say that you want a consultation for a hysterectomy and don't say anything else. I saw one of the providers from that list and she agreed that a hysterectomy was appropriate for me (31 years old, no kids) in part because of how horrible my periods are when I'm not on continuous hormonal birth control. The only reason we didn't schedule the surgery right then and there is because the Depo shot is working for the moment and she was concerned about how the recovery from surgery would affect my ability to study for medical school and board exams.
BeaPep 3 points 3 years ago
I actually tried three different providers from the childfree subreddit. One ended up refusing me entirely due to no insurance (I'm in Georgia and Medicaid hasn't been expanded yet. Though there was a mini-expansion this year.) and another actually worked with me over the phone for around 2 months without making me go to an appointment and pay just to see if I had enough... "evidence" or something that they could sign off on a hysterectomy. They ended up telling me I'd need to at least re-try several things first. I couldn't afford the surgery plus 5+ visits several hours away. The third closest option from the childfree list was in another state and couldn't see me unless I had their state insurance coverage.
I'm trying the Depo shot now from the health department but it hasn't helped at all. Thank you though! It's a long road ahead.
Edit: The provider who worked with me over the phone did offer me an ablation but they couldn't guarantee that it would fix the issues and it would cost me my entire hysterectomy savings fund so I just couldn't justify it. I may have the term "ablation" wrong because I remember I spoke in depth about it and one other very similar procedure... Either way they were very nice at least and I can see why they are on the list.
Finite 6 points 3 years ago
Wow, all it took for me was a gay man clutching my testicles during a five minute conversation about how vasectomies aren't really reversible for me to get clipped. I was only 30 years old
whatwhatwutyut 3 points 3 years ago
"Too risky" is such bullshit anyway. My OBGYN said that at my age (22), the only risks (aside from potential complications that come with ANY surgery) were a slightly early menopause (couple years max) and higher chance of vaginal prolapse (but that they put supports in place and there are things that can be done to correct this if it occurs)
BeaPep 2 points 3 years ago
Right?? That's pretty much what it seemed like to me too. No doctor really wanted to go into it except one mentioned that "any surgery with anesthesia can be dangerous!" and I remember I ditched that doctor on the first visit. I think a lot of it is rural areas have... less than great doctors.
Most of my doctor hopping was at least 9 months ago now so it all kinda just blurs together now.
orphiebaby 1 point 3 years ago
Also, if she wanted to do it, adoptions are always needed.
snooggums 1 point 3 years ago
The people refusing are openly stating that it is because of their religious beliefs. If they try to hide it then it will become apparent very quickly when their opinion always ends up with something other than the thing they oppose.
afraid_of_zombies 0 points 3 years ago
Medical review boards.
ech 28 points 3 years ago
Claiming this is due to religion isn't accurate. This happens all the time due to plain old misogyny. Women have a tough time getting proper medical treatment at all, not just when it overlaps with religious fruitcakes.
abraxas 4 points 3 years ago
I mean it's pretty easy. It doesn't make a good marketing campaign for atheism, but the correlation between education and irreligion seems to be causal the other way. Being irreligious leads one towards more education, but becoming educated does not lead one away from religion... Getting a physics degree or medical degree just does not make you less religious.
abraxas 1 point 3 years ago
One thing people leave out is that there is a LOT to religion and spirituality. Christianity, for example, is not entirely defined in terms of rejecting evolution. That's just a (tiny) part of their beliefs. When you start in a science-denying religion (worst-case scenario), it's still only a small percent of your beliefs that contradict the science. So some people stay believers and deny the contradictory science... others stay believers "except the science".
Many people adhere to non-science-denying religions. So while they are naturally less likely to pick a science major, if they DO pick a science major, nothing in it will knock them out of their faith.
afraid_of_zombies 0 points 3 years ago
That’s true, I witnessed it firsthand, and it’s still baffling to me. Going for a degree in biblical studies and apologetics at a religious university whose draconian fundamentalist views I fully aligned with when I entered is ironically what caused me to actually question the “biblical inerrancy” doctrinal belief.
Reminds me of
Very few people come out of law school sovereign citizens.
-Scathing Atheist podcast
ASeriesOfPoorChoices 3 points 3 years ago
"Maybe -I'M- god?"
afraid_of_zombies 3 points 3 years ago
The human mind is something else. I work with so many skydaddy fearing engineers. Utterly freaken brilliant people without which civilization ends in fire and feces.
AquaTofana 1 point 3 years ago
I was struggling with Biology for my associates degree back in 2007. I happened to teach Tae Kwon Do to the daughter of one of the state university Biology professors (I was only in community College at the time) and I asked the mom to tutor me.
And goddamn. As smart as she was regarding Biology, she bought into Christianity hook, line, and sinker (her husband was a pastor).
LavaPlanet 4 points 3 years ago
We could start our own list. When I say "we" I mean someone else, because I'm both not smart enough to build that, and not in the right place in the world.
Bizarroland 4 points 3 years ago
I like that. Makes it a lot easier to vote with your wallet.
HelixDab2 9 points 3 years ago
Except it doesn;t. Right now, roughly 20% of all hospitals in the US are owned by a religion; most are Catholic, and about 1/4 of them are 'some other religion'. That is up from 12% is 1995. What that means is that, in many cases--especially when it's an emergency--you won't have any choice at all except to accept religion-tainted healthcare.
I've lived in places where the only option covered by my insurance was religions.
HelixDab2 3 points 3 years ago
It's becoming a religion issue as Catholic groups take over more and more hospitals, because they're going to eliminate health care for things that are against their religious principles.
IMO healthcare should not be permitted to have religion interfering.
givesomefucks 232 points 3 years ago
Even worse then the headline...
One of the nurses started calling other hospitals lying about what happened, and even found the patient on Facebook and messaged her partner
She knows has to travel outside of the state to get appointments
ComicalMayhem 4 points 3 years ago
*HIPPOPOTAMUS
Salamendacious 37 points 3 years ago
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic but I'm nervous that she's going to lose and this whole misery machine is just going to keep churning.
Random_user 6 points 3 years ago
Dang, If it was going to be an upstate hospital I figured it would have been St Peters health partners. That group is fucked.
SuckMyWang 59 points 3 years ago
Conservative = Regressive. The worst part is that they only pine for it because of nostalgia and nostalgia has a tendency to be viewed through rose colored glasses
MelodiousFunk 24 points 3 years ago
To paraphrase a wise owl, when you look at something through rose colored glasses, all of the red flags are just flags.
SuckMyWang 1 point 3 years ago
…. Wouldn’t they appear to be black flags?
…. So what you’re saying is you’d still have to be a total dumb ass to keep going in that direction? That’s an excellent point you made
Perhapsjustsniffit 83 points 3 years ago path: 0 4183722, hotness: undefined, score: 83, children: 8
assassin_aragorn 10 points 3 years ago
Do your damnedest to keep them away. I've come to realize that the core of modern conservativism bypasses nationalities. All Western conservative leaders have the same goals.
(Conservative here meaning socially conservative largely. Fascists, not all capitalists necessarily)
TinfoilBeanieTech 11 points 3 years ago
I’m worried Canada is going to build a wall
BugleFingers 6 points 3 years ago
As someone who's about to go to the hospital, plz send help...and bugles
Ashe 1 point 3 years ago
I visited last month and it made me realize just how bad it's gotten. I had it in my head that I was in a reasonably safe area of the US, but it's getting worse. I may have to actually consider the asylum for trans people if it becomes a reality :~;
snausagesinablanket 75 points 3 years ago
Glens falls hospital is a toilet with entire floors that are abandoned. They don't even have fans for the women in the birthing center because "people keep stealing them" according to the staff so all this horribly hot summer, women that are about to have or just had a baby have to sit in a pool of sweat with no moving air in their rooms. It cost several thousand a day to stay there, but they can't provide $20 desk fans.
winterayars 17 points 3 years ago
Damn, it really sounded like you were describing the USSR for a second but then you said "It cost several thousand a day to stay there..."
icedterminal 13 points 3 years ago
Not just medication, but just choices regarding their bodies in general. It's appalling. A friend of mine doesn't want kids at all. She has been denied twice to have an elective hysterectomy. The doctors told her they won't in case she decides to have kids.
Kanzar 4 points 3 years ago
She can always ask for a bilateral salpingectomy. A lot of CF women have successfully had that done as IVF is still possible. If, however, she has endometriosis which is why she actually wants the hysterectomy done, then that's a fair bit harder. I'm unsure if there's a CF community on Lemmy, but the one on the other site had a lot of resources on how to talk with medical practitioners to get referred to someone who would do the treatment.
icedterminal 2 points 3 years ago
Thanks. I'll relay this along to her.
whatwhatwutyut 2 points 3 years ago
Yep, the reddit community had (and still has, afaik) a community gathered list of providers in each state where community members had had luck getting sterilized.
I found my OBGYN through this list and actually have my hysterectomy a week from today. Minimal convincing of the doctor necessary - just explained why I wanted it (terrible, heavy periods with heavy cramps AND I never want kids) and she essentially said "your body, your choice" and got me scheduled. Had to wait a month due to insurance requiring a wait period but no other issues.
FlowVoid 58 points 3 years ago
This sort of thing has been common practice since long before Dobbs. And it is usually motivated by the doctor's fear of getting sued over birth defects, especially if there is an alternative prescription that is not known to be associated with birth defects. And there almost always is an alternative.
vivadanang 12 points 3 years ago
And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects
I'd love to see some kind of citation or a medical professional's opinion. this seems like bullshit but I'm willing to read supporting evidence if you have any.
random65837 14 points 3 years ago path: 0 4193962 4202657 4203240, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 10
vivadanang 8 points 3 years ago
if the patient isn't pregnant, tests not pregnant, and says they won't get pregnant, and if they happen to get pregnant, abort the fetus, what the fuck is your problem? this woman asserted all this to the medical 'professional' and was still treated like a child who needed someone else's permission to receive the treatment she needed.
Ever had a migraine?
Comparing it to Thalidomide? FUCK YOU. The drug company knew it had multiple issues with pregnancy and still put it out. Docs warned each other. This is not the same thing, but you're trying to scare people into thinking there's an equivalence. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415
random65837 -9 points 3 years ago path: 0 4193962 4202657 4203240 4203496 4203774, hotness: undefined, score: -9, children: 8
FlowVoid 7 points 3 years ago
Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:
See also:
And yes, valproate is also used to treat cluster headaches, so it could easily be the drug that the woman in the article can't obtain.
vivadanang 7 points 3 years ago
so if anything can go wrong it shouldn't be prescribed?
Tell that to the millions of men who have high blood pressure but pop viagra all the time. Women get a double standard of treatment and it's bullshit. This woman didn't want children and affirmed she would seek an abortion if she became pregnant despite birth control. Docs still put her through this garbage.
Quereller 1 point 3 years ago
High blood pressure. Viagra can lower your blood pressure. If you’re taking medication to treat high blood pressure, taking Viagra could cause your blood pressure to drop even further. In some cases, this could make you feel dizzy or lightheaded or cause you to faint. And if you have high blood pressure that’s not controlled (measuring higher than 170/110 mmHg), your heart may not be healthy enough for sex. If you have high blood pressure, talk with your doctor about whether Viagra is right for you. If you’re able to take Viagra, your doctor will usually prescribe a dosage for you that’s lower than the typical dosage.
Oh and this one: Potential for cardiac risk with sexual activity in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease; therefore, treatment for erectile dysfunction generally should not be instituted in men for whom sexual activity is inadvisable because of their underlying cardiovascular status.
FlowVoid 12 points 3 years ago
I just noticed this in the article:
Where are we drawing the line here? Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test
Nearly all hospitals have long required pregnancy tests for some things, like getting a CT scan (which involves radiation exposure). And if the test is positive, the doctor is supposed to consider alternatives.
t_jpeg 2 points 3 years ago
Exactly. It's not a "where do we draw the line" thing here, the line is already drawn as you allude to. It's not just CT scans as well, some actual medications need pregnancy tests or at least active contraception use. Roaccutane, methotrexate and other DMARDs etc - everything in medicine is a risk vs reward thing and I'm sure many patient would prefer not to be on a drug that messes up their fetus whether they're planning to keep it or not in the case they get pregnant. You'd rather just avoid the risk of that situation occuring altogether.
LavaPlanet 2 points 3 years ago
You cut the quote off, that's just part of what was said. That quote in full doesn't just talk about a pregnancy test, but that on top of and as well as sterilisation, before being allowed to take a necessary drug.
SuddenlyBlowGreen 1 point 3 years ago
What birth defects would there be in this case?
FlowVoid 3 points 3 years ago
I don't know, because the medication in question hasn't been identified.
But in general, if a medication causes any birth defects (or, more often, miscarriages) in lab animals then it won't be used at the equivalent dose in pregnant patients. It would be unethical to try to find out what it does to a human fetus.
SuddenlyBlowGreen 1 point 3 years ago
So the woman was pregnant?
FlowVoid 2 points 3 years ago
I don't think so. But if a med is not to be used in pregnant patients, then it's only used as a last resort for patients who could become pregnant while taking it.
Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it's standard CYA for health care providers.
In the case of valproate, there are even European regulations against using it in women during childbearing years.
vivadanang -2 points 3 years ago
NOT IN THE ARTICLE. not sure what bullshit this thread's asserting
vivadanang 1 point 3 years ago
that is not the case here at all. READ THE GODDAMN ARTICLE. SHE WASN'T EVEN PREGNANT.
SaltySalamander -1 points 3 years ago
But she could become pregnant while taking the medication, which would likely lead to birth defects. Why are you struggling to understand this so badly?
AllNewTypeFace 56 points 3 years ago
Next week: drinking age for women raised to 50, just in case.
DarthBueller 53 points 3 years ago
I suspect that such decisions are being driven by fear of tort liability WAY more than any religious or social beliefs of the medical practitioners. I’m not trying to argue in favor of denying women needed medical treatment in any way, shape, or form—it’s just that my lawyer senses are tingling, and I wonder if this is an area where Doctors are overall more likely to get sued if they offer the treatment than deny the treatment. Any MDs in here want to offer a more informed opinion of what the F is going on with such denial of care situations?
SatanicNotMessianic 70 points 3 years ago
No, not in New York. These were personal decisions on the part of the health care providers, and I think this lawsuit is not only appropriate but desperately needed.
The suit is exactly targeted. When fetal personhood is considered to outweigh the life of the mother, it’s absolutely something that needs to be fought tooth and nail. When a hypothetical future fetus is determined to be more important than the life and health of the mother, we’ve entered into a zone that can only be called psychotic.
There is no case that makes it more clear that they’re turning women into sub-persons.
abraxas 9 points 3 years ago
This is the thing, and why this case seems shoe-in. None of the bullshit the recent SCOTUS has been saying about fetal rights can possibly hold if there isn't a fetus in the first place.
And I hate that as a pro-choicer I'm the one on the side of "erode the decision", but we need to slowly slip law back off this ledge. First a case where we know there wasn't a fetus. Then a case that erodes the amount of pregnancy testing a patient needs before receiving lifesaving care for herself. Etc.
I still cannot believe we live in a post-Dobbs world.
SatanicNotMessianic 2 points 3 years ago
Yes, exactly. On both the childfree and 2XC forums on the other site, there were frequent first person stories about adult women being refused processed like tubal ligation without their husband’s permission (or refused outright if unmarried), or steered away from medicines that could cause pregnancy complications even if they were not and were not planning on becoming pregnant. In hindsight, of course it would have to spill over to this kind of thing post-Roe.
I really hope the ACLU/PP/NARAL and everyone else with skin in this is planning the case-by-case strategy you’re talking about. We got to where we are because the other side was playing the long game up to now, when they’re shoving everything through at once. We are going to need to roll it back with a multi-year strategy as well, unfortunately.
DarthBueller 6 points 3 years ago
Thanks.
assassin_aragorn 3 points 3 years ago
Amen, Republicans saw the gradual erosion of sexism and took that personally. I suspect part of this now is revenge.
We need groups like the Satanic Church to fight fire with fire. Sue against things that could possibly hurt a fetus if you got pregnant tomorrow. Undue stress at work? Being exposed to harmful vapors and substances? Being treated roughly by police? Sue the ever living fuck out of them.
I don't doubt that Republicans will apply a double standard, but we need to make sure that double standard is constantly broadcasted so the people turn on them.
FlowVoid 6 points 3 years ago
Yes, this is very likely driven by fear of a malpractice lawsuit. Medications that can harm a fetus are supposed to be a last resort for those who can get pregnant. So if there are other potential medications for this woman, she will likely find it difficult to get a prescription for this one regardless of the doctor's religious beliefs.
tryptaminev 6 points 3 years ago
Couldnt the MD get a written confirmation from the patient that they informed them about the risks for a potential fetus?
NotMyOldRedditName 46 points 3 years ago
I'm surprised this happened in NY. That's the kind of BS you'd expect elsewhere.
This is so fucked up.
BanditMcDougal 47 points 3 years ago
Up-state NY is more rural and conservative. Towns in the mountains can be fairly small and isolated; those areas vote extremely red.
PhlubbaDubba 9 points 3 years ago
Maybe but it was apparently in the Albany metro,
I know folks commute there from the Adirondacks but Albany's one of the least religious cities in the world apparently
theotherone 34 points 3 years ago
As soon as you see “upstate”, you can bet it’s as provincial as any near midwestern state. I grew up along the southern border with PA. It’s more conservative than most people think. The Amish and Mennonite residents feel right at home in those communities.
NotMyOldRedditName 6 points 3 years ago
Ah, I had no idea.
theotherone 1 point 3 years ago
Upstate just means “not the city” of New York. I’m telling you about my knowledge of part of New York State, and, while anecdotal, I believe it is indicative of the more rural parts.
Hello_there 8 points 3 years ago
It's upstate. Isn't that like republican central?
lingh0e 13 points 3 years ago
Upstate, downstate, all around state. Anywhere outside of large urban centers-state.
It's the same all around America. Further from the cities you get, the more you find people exhibiting inexplicable Southern affectation, MAGA cultism and general shitheel behavior. Like, there are portions of North East OH that are geographically closer to Canada than the Mason Dixon Line, yet they're still flying traitor flags and sound more southern than actual southerners.
PhlubbaDubba 2 points 3 years ago
That Erie Canal route basically drags the rest of the state around kicking and screaming.
Even if the Syracuse, Utica, Rochester, Buffalo types resent being associated with NYC, they still vote the same shade of blue more often than not. Just a difference between east coast lefty vs Midwest lefty, because seriously, Erie Canal cities are just the furthest flung eastern fringes of the Midwest
FlyingSquid 28 points 3 years ago
I have chronic pain. I also have the privilege of being male, so I do not have to go through what she went through, but I would probably not make it out of it alive considering how severe my pain is and what I tried to do about it once before.
Quexotic 18 points 3 years ago
I agree with the points made in this article, but I don't think they did due diligence in reporting on what doctors or hospitals blacklisted her and why. I'd like to know the reasoning behind why she was denied treatment everywhere locally. I suspect that there's an interesting story there.
vivadanang 5 points 3 years ago
Yeah there's an interesting story, the doctors lied about her to other doctors:
According to Rule, after she shared audio recordings of her interactions with the neurologist on TikTok, an employee at the hospital contacted another hospital in the area, alleging that Rule livestreamed her appointments. This led to Rule’s removal from the second hospital, Malta Medical (also under Albany Medical Health Partners), in the middle of treatment for her cluster headaches. Rule denies livestreaming.
Quexotic 2 points 3 years ago
Right, and it's great that we hear her side of the story as it truly is an injustice. I also noticed that the writer did say that they wouldn't comment on ongoing litigation, but still, what about all the other hospitals that blacklisted her, right?
Also, not a smart move on her part publicizing that stuff before the trial, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.
Anyway, I hope she wins the shit out of that lawsuit!
vivadanang 1 point 3 years ago
I can't fathom how women deal with this bullshit day in and day out. Yeah, hopefully she wins enough to give pause to the other assholes who want to tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies.
Quexotic 2 points 3 years ago
Me either. My wife, for example, was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, IMO, a total cop-out.... and now they see in imaging that the pain is likely from arthritis.
Fuckin frustrating.
andy_wijaya_med 16 points 3 years ago
What is the medicine in question? Any other MD (or better, neurologist) here? As far as I know, most of the standard treatment for cluster headaches are safe for pregnant women...
crazyminner 50 points 3 years ago
She's not pregnant though so it wouldn't matter.
alcasa 5 points 3 years ago
Commonly they dont recommend embryotoxic medication in woman of childbearing age, as unecpected pregnancies happen and the chance for severe birth defects increase. Sometimes these can only be detected late into a pregnancy, so if the person might want to keep a pregnancy it would be not to take it.
sweeny 53 points 3 years ago
That should be the women's choice to make though. She doesn't want a baby, if she has an unexpected pregnancy she will abort, so she doesn't need to take all that into account. She should get her treatment and a prior warning about pregnancy issues that could occur
FlowVoid 3 points 3 years ago
That's not how it would play out in a malpractice case.
Lawyer: You recommended my client take a medication that causes birth defects, when you could have recommended a medication that doesn't cause birth defects. Because of that, her child has birth defects.
Doctor: Yes, but she said she didn't want children.
Lawyer: Have you ever heard a woman say she didn't want children, who later went on to have a child?
Doctor: Yes, it happens sometimes.
Lawyer: So birth defects are a foreseeable result of the medication you recommended, even in women who say they don't want children?
Doctor: ...
assassin_aragorn 3 points 3 years ago
Easy solution, prescribe birth control treatment in tandem. Require insurance to pay.
It's pretty simple really. If someone is taking a medication that creates problems if they become pregnant, and they don't want to become pregnant, give them treatment to prevent them from becoming pregnant!
The_v 27 points 3 years ago
Not a Dr. but enjoy a good scientific paper.
Intranasal dihydroergotamine is a category X. Aka it causes fetal damage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...
Also for those that don't know a cluster headache is a migraine on steroids. Also referred to as "suicide headaches" due to a common event prior to effective treatment.
Smokeydabear94 2 points 3 years ago
Also, also referred to as exploding head syndrome
BreadstickNinja 6 points 3 years ago
Exploding head syndrome is something different and a potential side effect of rapid discontinuation of SSRIs. I've had it and it's different from a migraine.
Smokeydabear94 2 points 3 years ago
Upon refreshing my memory you are correct. I just must have assumed they referred to the same thing
andy_wijaya_med 1 point 3 years ago
You're right. There are other options though. Like oxygen therapy triptan, etc. I don't understand why didn't the doctor just prescribe the drug. Just let the patient sign an informed consent.... especially if the patient isn't pregnant and not planning pregnancy at the moment.
ThatFembyWho 16 points 3 years ago
Wouldn't contraceptives be an even better protection?
You can't have birth defects if you're never conceived *taps head*
EdibleFriend 16 points 3 years ago path: 0 4171014, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 21
stopthatgirl7 14 points 3 years ago
The thing is…it worked. People training to be doctors stopped going into abortion-related fields, some schools stopped teaching late-term abortion techniques, and it overall became more difficult to get abortions. And now abortions are becoming illegal again in many states. Their side won.
Drusas 2 points 3 years ago
Not yet. A lot of doctors are leaving those states so that they can practice freely without fear of being prosecuted for doing what's best for their patients. Looking at you, Idaho
n2burns 1 point 3 years ago
You say, "won" like nothing can ever change. Dobbs is definitely a step back but I am certain it'll change back in my lifetime. I'm not an American, but where I am, we've adjusted to the threats against abortion providers and I think many US states have done the same.
As the saying goes, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
EdibleFriend 6 points 3 years ago
Yes. Do you think we're really going to take a doctor like this and sit him down and make him a functioning member of society who treats women with respect?
n2burns 1 point 3 years ago
No, he should lose his medical license and potentially suffer other consequences, but that's through the process of a civilized society. The nurse practitioner's actions sound criminal and should be prosecuted as such. No need to act barbaric.
samothtiger 2 points 3 years ago
I’ve been saying this for years. Hope you don’t get banned.
EdibleFriend 4 points 3 years ago
If I do I do. But that's where I am. We keep trying the 'right' thing to fix society and get past this shit.
Its. not. fucking. working.
EdibleFriend 1 point 3 years ago
Tell this woman and the thousands of others like her that it's working. I fucking dare you to go to her account and post don't worry society is getting better just live with it for now.
samothtiger 0 points 3 years ago
To be quite frank, we are beyond the time where incremental change is going to save us on so many issues, we might as well drastically raze the entire structure to the ground and rebuild anew. We shortly will not have the planet we used to because we’ve been trying this current method of polite effort. We need to be rude, aggressive, and dangerous to our opposition because they are trying to kill us. They are actively killing us. We are not winning yet and I don’t know if I have time to see us get there.
thatsnothowyoudoit 12 points 3 years ago
Under his eye.
FlowVoid 4 points 3 years ago
My guess is that the drug is valproate. It's used for headaches as well as epilepsy, though obviously other drugs can be used instead.
The problem with valproate is that it is causes birth defects in two thirds (!!) of pregnancies, including spina bifida in 10% of pregnancies.
The World Health Organization and the European Medicine Agency have issued statements/regulations against prescribing it to any women of childbearing potential. Plenty of American docs take a similar approach, regardless of religious beliefs. Just to be crystal clear, neither the WHO nor the EMA pay attention to Dobbs, the SCOTUS, or the GOP.
Quereller -5 points 3 years ago
The FDA mandates that such drugs are only dispensed to patient with evidence of pregnancy testing and contraception use. (Which is IMHO common sense to require.)
I did not find information if the woman did a pregnancy test and used a reliable contraceptive.
weed_scientist 38 points 3 years ago
It says right in the video in the article that she uses contraception and would have an abortion if it failed. I'm sure she would've taken a pregnancy test, but that doctor wasn't having it. What more do you need to feel like this woman should be "allowed" to receive life-saving medication? She was literally passing out from pain. Then was prescribed a med that dangerously drops her already low blood pressure.
weed_scientist 1 point 3 years ago
Yes, I mentioned that in the last sentence of my comment. She said in the video that her blood pressure dropping to a lethal level is very possible due to pre-existing issues.
Bitchfit 11 points 3 years ago
I can't, for technical reasons, watch the video, either, but all the information above is literally written down in the article.
I'm curious why you automatically assume she's lying and not the hospital?
Quereller 2 points 3 years ago
Propably I have some normalicy bias. I actually don't think she is lying. She might not believe the reasons the MDs do not want to prescribe her the drug at the moment.
For example the text says things like this: He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.” That sound bad but if you look at the product label:
Patient Information
Important questions
...
Are you pregnant? Do you think you might be pregnant? Are you trying to become pregnant? Are you sexually active and not using birth control? Are you breast feeding?
...
Edit: this article gives a bit more info. Inclusive a link to the audio recording (which is still can not access thanks to TikTok). The infos provided are in favor of the patient.
roboticide 7 points 3 years ago
Which is why she's suing and will hopefully take them to the cleaners.
Quereller -6 points 3 years ago
It would be interesting to hear of the final ruling.
I still have the hunch that is more like: according to the treatment guidelines you are supposed to try out this two other drugs first because they have less side effects and are safer.
Or maybe the MDs in this hospital are all bigoted lunatics. I don't know.
RememberTheApollo_ 16 points 3 years ago
So your assumption is that she lied or tried to pull one over on the Dr for pain meds?
Quereller -8 points 3 years ago
No, that not! The drug she wants is not a pain killer.
Maybe, she didn't want to make a pregnancy test and did not want to use the pill or spiral, etc. The doctors can only give her the drug if these conditions are met (she can not get pregnant at the moment). Because it is clearly stated on the packaging label and accompanying documentation. If they would give it anyway they would be personally liable (and responsible) for a possible stillbirth or handicapped child.
This is only speculation on my part. Maybe it is all totally different.
DieguiTux8623 -6 points 3 years ago
(irony): if nobody ever thinks about future tax payers and slaves forced to work for minimum wages (in the "rich" countries that even have minimum wages) how are we expecting western society to sustain itself? This is horrible and reveals how we are treated as captive animals by our "shepherds".
news
@lemmy.world
39559
40371
9675
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
news
@lemmy.world
39559
40371
9675
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
If doctors (or pharmacists) want the choice to impose their own religion on their patients, then at minimum need need to disclose that before ever meeting a patient. Additionally it would disqualify them from accepting any patients that are subsidized with taxpayer money.
This could act like the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of cigarettes:
WARNING: this physician acts with their own religion in mind before your well being. This could be a danger to your health.
save