News
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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
The medical school I'm currently in is an Osteopathic school that leans pretty hard into the Christian traditions/origins of osteopathy, so it's not terribly uncommon for me to get into philosophical and ethical arguments with my classmates and professors. There are a bunch of them that I know that I'll never change their minds about most things, but the others who listen in to those arguments might be swayed or at least given a seed of doubt to explore further.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 :(
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.
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.
Yeah, healthcare in this country is a hot mess in a lot of ways. Something that could help push it in the direction of getting coverage is if you have any family history of things like uterine fibroids, or gynecological cancers. It's a pretty straightforward thing on the paperwork end of things if cancer prophylaxis is on the list of reasons.
Another thing you could consider in this capitalist hellscape is signing up for a plan off the ACA that has a deductible similar to or less than your savings. That way you would wipe out the deductible immediately, have access to more providers, and have some semblance of coverage for the rest of the year.
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
"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)
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.
Also, if she wanted to do it, adoptions are always needed.
Or, and hear me out, don't let them deny medical care based on their religion.
You'd have to prove it was purely religion and not their "genuine medical opinion".
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.
It is so easy to lie about your intentions and hide it behind legit sounding excuses, like "but you could have a child one day".
Medical review boards.
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.
How does anyone even become a doctor and still hold onto religion?
Because medicine doesn't require you to be atheistic and after a while some really need something that can provide hope however irrational that might be?
How do you get provided anything by just hacking your emotions with shit you know is just made up for that purpose?
Because most disagree that it isn't real. Aetheism is by no means a common outlook
Got a source for that "most"?
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.
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.
Reminds me of
-Scathing Atheist podcast
"Maybe -I'M- god?"
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.
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).
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.
I like that. Makes it a lot easier to vote with your wallet.
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.
IMO that's more of an insurance issue and a fair competition issue.
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.
Hmm... yeah or at least, maybe not be permitted to set policy for an entire hospital?