Christian pediatrician denies child service because parents are tattooed

KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Christian pediatrician denies child service because parents are tattooed

Link

BAKERSFIELD - A family is turned away by a local pediatrician, they say because of the way they look.

The doctor said he is just following his beliefs, creating a Christian atmosphere for his patients.

Tasha Childress said it’s discrimination.

She said Dr. Gary Merrill wouldn’t treat her daughter for an ear infection because Tasha, the mother, has tattoos.

The writing is on the wall—literally: “This is a private office. Appearance and behavior standards apply.”

For Dr. Gary Merrill of Christian Medical Services, that means no tattoos, body piercings, and a host of other requirements—all standards Merrill has set based upon his Christian faith.

“She had to go that entire night with her ear infection with no medicine because he has his policy,” Tasha Childress said.

Merrill won’t speak on camera, but said based on his values and beliefs, he has standards that he expects in his office.

He does that, he said, to ensure the patients he does accept have a more comfortable atmosphere.

According to the American Medical Association and other doctors, he reserves that right.

“In the same sense that any other business person has the opportunity to decline service, be it a restaurant if they’re not dressed properly, be it any other type of business,” said Dr. Ronald Morton, Kern County Medical Society.

Morton said certain ethics apply if a person’s life is in danger, but besides that, there is no requirement to serve anyone they don’t approve of.

“I felt totally discriminated against, like I wasn’t good enough to talk to,” Tasha Childress said, “like he didn’t have to give me any reason for not wanting to see my daughter because I have tattoos and piercings.”

17 News found other patients who had a different experience with Merrill.

“I have tattoos, actually, and no, nothing’s ever been said about it,” Brandi Stanley said, Merrill’s patient.

Childress’ insurance company, Health Net of California, who referred her to Merrill, said in a statement: “We provide our customers with a wide breadth of doctors that meet certain medical quality standards … If a customer doesn’t feel comfortable with a particular physician, it is our responsibility to provide that customer with access to another doctor who does meet their needs.”

But that’s not enough for Childress who wants the policy changed immediately and an apology from the doctor for making her feel like an outsider.

“Really, it didn’t matter what he didn’t want to see us for. It isn’t right,” she said.

If you have a story idea, mail it to 2120 L Street, or submit it at KGET.com by clicking on “Your Stories.”

Merrill said he will continue to enforce the rules he has in place, which even include no chewing gum in his office.

He said if they don’t like his beliefs, they can find another doctor.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I had the same sort of

I had the same sort of thing happen when I had outpatient surgery a few years ago. The surgery was to correct a congenital condition, and had nothing to do with anything else I may or may not have done.

When the doctor (chosen because of proximity to me) was doing his screening, he asked me a LOT of questions about my drinking habits, drug use, and sexual history. The operation in question had nothing to do with sexual history, and my answer "I drink 2-4 drinks three to four times a week, and I don't do any illegal drugs, or take prescriptions without a prescription" ought to have been sufficient, but he asked me quite a few detailed questions, particularly about the number of sexual partners I'd had, whether I'd been monagamous, whether I'd engaged in homosexual behavior, etc... etc...

When I asked him why he was asking all of these questions for such a simple, unrelated operation, he said that he screens patients for "lifestyle choices.' When I pressed, he said that it was a "Christian Practice" and that he only accepts patients with strong Christian ethics.

It worked out ok, because I just looked at him and said, "Doctor, I have no desire to be your patient. My HMO says I have to be referred to a surgeon, and I'd like you to do that, please."

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
They should lose their

They should lose their licenses for that kind of shit. Same for Pharmacists who refuse do sispense medications they don't like (I think those pharmacists should actually face prison time.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Childress’

KSMB wrote:

Childress’ insurance company, Health Net of California, who referred her to Merrill, said in a statement: “We provide our customers with a wide breadth of doctors that meet certain medical quality standards … If a customer doesn’t feel comfortable with a particular physician, it is our responsibility to provide that customer with access to another doctor who does meet their needs.”

That's certainly a crock of shit.  It was the physician that was uncomfortable, not the patient.

What really steams me is that he refused to treat a child in pain because he didn't like the looks of the mother.

This ass is now imposing dress codes for patients?  Gimme a break.

Hambydammit wrote:
When I asked him why he was asking all of these questions for such a simple, unrelated operation, he said that he screens patients for "lifestyle choices.' When I pressed, he said that it was a "Christian Practice" and that he only accepts patients with strong Christian ethics.

A friend of mine had a similar experience.  He went to the doctor when he was having trouble with his eye.  The doctor asked a lot of unrelated questions and ascertained that my friend is gay.  The doctor refused to touch him and wouldn't even get close enough to look at his eye.  (OMG ! Gayness might be contagious!)

In both cases, if a doctor is going to be judgemental (and it's  allowed that they do this) about who will be treated, they should advertise up front "Treating Only Xian Patients."

Would any of this be tolerated if it were racial prejudice? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


info warfare
info warfare's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
I'm actually shocked reading

I'm actually shocked reading all of this. I didn't know this kind of stuff was going on in the medical community. One of the tenents of the doctor's Hippocratic Oath is "To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority." Clearly, this is not happening and these doctors SHOULD lose their license or at least be fined.

::[ INFO WARFARE ]::
www.info-warfare.com


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Merrill said he

Quote:
Merrill said he will continue to enforce the rules he has in place, which even include no chewing gum in his office.

Denying someone medical help because they're chewing gum has got to be one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Or is there something non-xian about gum of which I am not aware? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Chewing gum is the work of

Chewing gum is the work of the devil?

 

And look at the story this way? Imagine if a doctor refused to treat black or Jewish patients? Don't you think the Medical board would yank their license in a minute?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Unlucky13
Unlucky13's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
I'd love to see an Atheist

I'd love to see an Atheist doctor refuse to treat Christians on the basis that insanity is not his field. Laughing

ASK A PRIEST!!!!

I am collecting questions for the next couple of weeks. Do you have a question you'd like to ask a priest? Post it here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5959


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Makes me glad to be

Makes me glad to be Canadian. This would never happen here. The doctor would be stripped of his license on the spot, and then summarily sued into bankruptcy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
You know, this is what

You know, this is what happens if people have too much time to waste on questions like "how would Dr. Jesus consider this patient?"

Medical jobs are like other jobs: you don't like it, do something else.

I'm glad that where I live, that practice would automatically mean license revocation.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I think the reign of

I think the reign of Pretzeldent Shrub has emboldened the terr'ists...I mean, emboldened the fundies. Let's face it, given enough time and power, the fundies would take us back to the Dark Ages.

Dealing with fundies--my family included--has become an onerous task since the coronation of the boy king.

 On edit: in case you couldn't tell, I really, really dislike George W. Bush.  He deepened the rift between my family and me just by being his "uniter not a divider" ol' self.  God I hate that bastard.  

That is all. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Apparently in California,

Apparently in California, there are some contraints on a doctor refusing to treat someone:

A doctor can decide whether he or she will provide services to any particular person. However, there are both legal and ethical constraints on a doctor's discretion. A doctor is not free to refuse a patient merely because a patient is a member of certain groups. It is illegal and unethical to refuse to treat a patient because of the patient's sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or physical disability.

 The full article can be read here.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
info warfare wrote: I'm

info warfare wrote:
I'm actually shocked reading all of this. I didn't know this kind of stuff was going on in the medical community. One of the tenents of the doctor's Hippocratic Oath is "To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority." Clearly, this is not happening and these doctors SHOULD lose their license or at least be fined.

Many American Medical Schools and medical professional institutes no longer do the Hippocratic Oath. Individual schools and institutes usually have revised oaths that modify a good chunk of what the Hippocratic Oath originally said.  Remember that the original Hippocratic Oath was an oath sworn to pagan gods of health and hygiene, so of course at least that part had to get the axe or there'd be an outcry from Christians and other "mainstream" religious-types over paganism.

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Makes me glad

Vastet wrote:
Makes me glad to be Canadian. This would never happen here. The doctor would be stripped of his license on the spot, and then summarily sued into bankruptcy.

 

Not entirely true. I live in Canada as well and I've had a doctor in a clinic refuse to prescribe the morning after pill (plan B in the US) because it was against her moral beliefs (aka. religious beliefs).

 I wore a condom as always, it broke during sex with my girlfriend of 7 years, and neither of us wanted to take the chance.

 I still have a tough time seeing how your moral values are being violated when all you are doing is writing the prescription, while it is still my girlfriends choice to actually take it.

 Luckily in Canada it is now available nation-wide over the counter. However, it only took an extra 6 years to push it nation-wide due to the religious right and their cries of "baby killing" and "encouraging teen sex!"


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote: Vastet

Skyfairy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Makes me glad to be Canadian. This would never happen here. The doctor would be stripped of his license on the spot, and then summarily sued into bankruptcy.

Not entirely true. I live in Canada as well and I've had a doctor in a clinic refuse to prescribe the morning after pill (plan B in the US) because it was against her moral beliefs (aka. religious beliefs).

There is of course a significant difference between refusing to give a prescription for a pill used for convenience and between delivering health services as mentioned in the article. There are many methods that can be used to the same effect over a rather long period of time, that can come from any doctor. And then you have the debate on the issue itself, where many doctors look at it as a violation of their hippocratic oath to issue such medication.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: There is of

Vastet wrote:
There is of course a significant difference between refusing to give a prescription for a pill used for convenience and between delivering health services as mentioned in the article. There are many methods that can be used to the same effect over a rather long period of time, that can come from any doctor. And then you have the debate on the issue itself, where many doctors look at it as a violation of their hippocratic oath to issue such medication.

Maybe you should have included the part where I said the condom broke during sex. It wasn't convienient for us to drive around for hours the next day looking for an emergency clinic on a Saturday morning with a physician who would prescribe Plan B.

 Maybe fire fighters should have the right to object to saving homosexuals on religious grounds as well?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote: Vastet

Skyfairy wrote:

Vastet wrote:
There is of course a significant difference between refusing to give a prescription for a pill used for convenience and between delivering health services as mentioned in the article. There are many methods that can be used to the same effect over a rather long period of time, that can come from any doctor. And then you have the debate on the issue itself, where many doctors look at it as a violation of their hippocratic oath to issue such medication.

Maybe you should have included the part where I said the condom broke during sex. It wasn't convienient for us to drive around for hours the next day looking for an emergency clinic on a Saturday morning with a physician who would prescribe Plan B.

 Maybe fire fighters should have the right to object to saving homosexuals on religious grounds as well?

The difference is that pregnancy isn't a health problem. I would have specified this, but I felt it was self evident. Apparently not.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I had

Hambydammit wrote:

I had the same sort of thing happen when I had outpatient surgery a few years ago. The surgery was to correct a congenital condition, and had nothing to do with anything else I may or may not have done.

When the doctor (chosen because of proximity to me) was doing his screening, he asked me a LOT of questions about my drinking habits, drug use, and sexual history. The operation in question had nothing to do with sexual history, and my answer "I drink 2-4 drinks three to four times a week, and I don't do any illegal drugs, or take prescriptions without a prescription" ought to have been sufficient, but he asked me quite a few detailed questions, particularly about the number of sexual partners I'd had, whether I'd been monagamous, whether I'd engaged in homosexual behavior, etc... etc...

When I asked him why he was asking all of these questions for such a simple, unrelated operation, he said that he screens patients for "lifestyle choices.' When I pressed, he said that it was a "Christian Practice" and that he only accepts patients with strong Christian ethics.

It worked out ok, because I just looked at him and said, "Doctor, I have no desire to be your patient. My HMO says I have to be referred to a surgeon, and I'd like you to do that, please."

 

 

This is almost a surreal story. The ignorance and prejudice displayed by the doctor rises to the level of "unbelievable."  I think I would have opened a major can on him.

 

Unreal...the life and times of living in a 'christian' nation.

 

 

 


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Skyfairy

Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:

Vastet wrote:
There is of course a significant difference between refusing to give a prescription for a pill used for convenience and between delivering health services as mentioned in the article. There are many methods that can be used to the same effect over a rather long period of time, that can come from any doctor. And then you have the debate on the issue itself, where many doctors look at it as a violation of their hippocratic oath to issue such medication.

Maybe you should have included the part where I said the condom broke during sex. It wasn't convienient for us to drive around for hours the next day looking for an emergency clinic on a Saturday morning with a physician who would prescribe Plan B.

 Maybe fire fighters should have the right to object to saving homosexuals on religious grounds as well?

The difference is that pregnancy isn't a health problem. I would have specified this, but I felt it was self evident. Apparently not.

It's not self evident. Pregnancy is a health problem if it's unwanted.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote:

Skyfairy wrote:

It's not self evident. Pregnancy is a health problem if it's unwanted.

I've got to agree with the Skyfairy here. Pregnancy takes a lot out of a woman's body. Also, most women prepare their bodies for pregnancy by taking folic acid, quitting cigarettes and alcohol, eating a healthier diet, etc. An unwanted pregnancy can be a very unhealthy pregnancy.

Another problem is the current epidemic of chronic illnesses like diabetes. If I were to get pregnant, I'd certain consider it a health problem! I am not well enough to bear a child.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote: Vastet

Skyfairy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:

Vastet wrote:
There is of course a significant difference between refusing to give a prescription for a pill used for convenience and between delivering health services as mentioned in the article. There are many methods that can be used to the same effect over a rather long period of time, that can come from any doctor. And then you have the debate on the issue itself, where many doctors look at it as a violation of their hippocratic oath to issue such medication.

Maybe you should have included the part where I said the condom broke during sex. It wasn't convienient for us to drive around for hours the next day looking for an emergency clinic on a Saturday morning with a physician who would prescribe Plan B.

 Maybe fire fighters should have the right to object to saving homosexuals on religious grounds as well?

The difference is that pregnancy isn't a health problem. I would have specified this, but I felt it was self evident. Apparently not.

It's not self evident. Pregnancy is a health problem if it's unwanted.

No it isn't. A financial or social problem maybe, but definately not a health problem.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Skyfairy

Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:

Vastet wrote:
There is of course a significant difference between refusing to give a prescription for a pill used for convenience and between delivering health services as mentioned in the article. There are many methods that can be used to the same effect over a rather long period of time, that can come from any doctor. And then you have the debate on the issue itself, where many doctors look at it as a violation of their hippocratic oath to issue such medication.

Maybe you should have included the part where I said the condom broke during sex. It wasn't convienient for us to drive around for hours the next day looking for an emergency clinic on a Saturday morning with a physician who would prescribe Plan B.

 Maybe fire fighters should have the right to object to saving homosexuals on religious grounds as well?

The difference is that pregnancy isn't a health problem. I would have specified this, but I felt it was self evident. Apparently not.

It's not self evident. Pregnancy is a health problem if it's unwanted.

No it isn't. A financial or social problem maybe, but definately not a health problem.

 I was wrong, all pregnancies are a health problem. This is why your are supposed to consult with your doctor before becoming pregnant.

 According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US, 1 in 3 pregnant women will suffer complications in their pregnancy. How is it not a health problem?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I have to agree with Howard

I have to agree with Howard Stern - any man who would try to prevent a woman from getting an abortion should get bent over a dumpster and raped in the ass by someone infected with AIDS.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I have

MattShizzle wrote:
I have to agree with Howard Stern - any man who would try to prevent a woman from getting an abortion should get bent over a dumpster and raped in the ass by someone infected with AIDS.

The thing in my case is that we weren't even trying to get an abortion. We were trying to prevent pregnancy, which is why I used a condom in the first place. Plan B works exactly like an IUD in preventing fertillization and implantation.

The only reason I can see someone being against emergency contraceptives is that they believe that human life starts at fertilization (aka. religious belief). Otherwise you are stopping a clump of cells with some human DNA from attaching itself to the utterine lining (definately not a person).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote: Vastet

Skyfairy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:

Vastet wrote:
There is of course a significant difference between refusing to give a prescription for a pill used for convenience and between delivering health services as mentioned in the article. There are many methods that can be used to the same effect over a rather long period of time, that can come from any doctor. And then you have the debate on the issue itself, where many doctors look at it as a violation of their hippocratic oath to issue such medication.

Maybe you should have included the part where I said the condom broke during sex. It wasn't convienient for us to drive around for hours the next day looking for an emergency clinic on a Saturday morning with a physician who would prescribe Plan B.

 Maybe fire fighters should have the right to object to saving homosexuals on religious grounds as well?

The difference is that pregnancy isn't a health problem. I would have specified this, but I felt it was self evident. Apparently not.

It's not self evident. Pregnancy is a health problem if it's unwanted.

No it isn't. A financial or social problem maybe, but definately not a health problem.

 I was wrong, all pregnancies are a health problem. This is why your are supposed to consult with your doctor before becoming pregnant.

 According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US, 1 in 3 pregnant women will suffer complications in their pregnancy. How is it not a health problem?

Get the medical community to declare pregnancy a health problem and I'll agree with you. Until then it's the natural process of creating life, and cannot be considered a problem in and of itself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Skyfairy

Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:

Vastet wrote:
There is of course a significant difference between refusing to give a prescription for a pill used for convenience and between delivering health services as mentioned in the article. There are many methods that can be used to the same effect over a rather long period of time, that can come from any doctor. And then you have the debate on the issue itself, where many doctors look at it as a violation of their hippocratic oath to issue such medication.

Maybe you should have included the part where I said the condom broke during sex. It wasn't convienient for us to drive around for hours the next day looking for an emergency clinic on a Saturday morning with a physician who would prescribe Plan B.

 Maybe fire fighters should have the right to object to saving homosexuals on religious grounds as well?

The difference is that pregnancy isn't a health problem. I would have specified this, but I felt it was self evident. Apparently not.

It's not self evident. Pregnancy is a health problem if it's unwanted.

No it isn't. A financial or social problem maybe, but definately not a health problem.

 I was wrong, all pregnancies are a health problem. This is why your are supposed to consult with your doctor before becoming pregnant.

 According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US, 1 in 3 pregnant women will suffer complications in their pregnancy. How is it not a health problem?

Get the medical community to declare pregnancy a health problem and I'll agree with you. Until then it's the natural process of creating life, and cannot be considered a problem in and of itself.

 You never found it suspicious that doctors recommend to women that they consult with them before becoming pregnant?


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: According to the

Quote:
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in the US, 1 in 3 pregnant women will suffer complications in their pregnancy.

What is it with this tendency of US folks to greatly overstate the numbers? Last time I've heard it, it was somewhere around 15%... which is quite about the normal level in a healthy country.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote: You never

Skyfairy wrote:
You never found it suspicious that doctors recommend to women that they consult with them before becoming pregnant?

You ever wonder why they do? In my experience it's because the average person doesn't know the first thing about having kids, they need to learn. Sure there are the odd problems that can arise during/before/after pregnancy, but it's not the pregnancy in and of itself. And it's not like she would have been irreversably pregnant if you couldn't find a doctor that day. There's just no comparison between this and a child who needs immediate medical attention and is turned away.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Skyfairy

Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:
You never found it suspicious that doctors recommend to women that they consult with them before becoming pregnant?
You ever wonder why they do? In my experience it's because the average person doesn't know the first thing about having kids, they need to learn. Sure there are the odd problems that can arise during/before/after pregnancy, but it's not the pregnancy in and of itself. And it's not like she would have been irreversably pregnant if you couldn't find a doctor that day. There's just no comparison between this and a child who needs immediate medical attention and is turned away.

 An ear infection doesn't require immediate medical attention either. I had one when I was 9 and it hurt, but it wasn't like without a doctor I would permanantly lose my hearing.

 "Sure there are the odd problems that can arise during/before/after pregnancy, but it's not the pregnancy in and of itself."

 One in three, that's your chances of having complications during a pregnancy. That's not the odd problem. Not to mention your comment is like saying that problems can arise from smoking, but it's not the cigarettes in and of itself.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote:Vastet

Skyfairy wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Skyfairy wrote:
You never found it suspicious that doctors recommend to women that they consult with them before becoming pregnant?
You ever wonder why they do? In my experience it's because the average person doesn't know the first thing about having kids, they need to learn. Sure there are the odd problems that can arise during/before/after pregnancy, but it's not the pregnancy in and of itself. And it's not like she would have been irreversably pregnant if you couldn't find a doctor that day. There's just no comparison between this and a child who needs immediate medical attention and is turned away.
An ear infection doesn't require immediate medical attention either. I had one when I was 9 and it hurt, but it wasn't like without a doctor I would permanantly lose my hearing.

And I had a few as a child, and it was in fact a danger to my hearing. It was also extremely painful. Pregnancy isn't painful for months.

Skyfairy wrote:
One in three, that's your chances of having complications during a pregnancy. That's not the odd problem. Not to mention your comment is like saying that problems can arise from smoking, but it's not the cigarettes in and of itself.

Which is true. You ever seen a cigarette kill someone? I haven't. Would be rather amusing to watch though.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: And I had a

Vastet wrote:
And I had a few as a child, and it was in fact a danger to my hearing. It was also extremely painful. Pregnancy isn't painful for months. 

 From the literature I've read, only unresolved ear infections or severe repeated middle ear infections can lead to permanant injury.

 Either way, neither of these events should ever happen. Religious beliefs should not be allowed to be applied by caregivers to their patients.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote: Vastet

Skyfairy wrote:

Vastet wrote:
And I had a few as a child, and it was in fact a danger to my hearing. It was also extremely painful. Pregnancy isn't painful for months. 

 From the literature I've read, only unresolved ear infections or severe repeated middle ear infections can lead to permanant injury.

Which is what I had. And for all you, I, or the doctor knew, could be what the child in the article had.

Skyfairy wrote:

 Either way, neither of these events should ever happen. Religious beliefs should not be allowed to be applied by caregivers to their patients.

 

How far do you take this? Plastic surgery? If a life threatening or painful condition is at hand I agree. But not articles of convenience.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Skyfairy
Skyfairy's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
What about plastic surgery?

What about plastic surgery? Are you talking about a plastic surgeon denying someone plastic surgery on the basis of religious belief?

 I don't see where you are taking this, but if your argument is that emergency contraception doesn't require immediate use, then I'm done talking with you on this issue.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skyfairy wrote: What about

Skyfairy wrote:

What about plastic surgery? Are you talking about a plastic surgeon denying someone plastic surgery on the basis of religious belief?

 I don't see where you are taking this, but if your argument is that emergency contraception doesn't require immediate use, then I'm done talking with you on this issue.

 

The fact of the matter is that both you and the girl hold all the responsibility here. Your failure is yours, not the doctors. I'd think that was obvious, but you have little understanding of maturity apparently. Yes, we're done talking. Convenience isn't medical necessity. Whether you want it to be or not.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GreyhoundMama
GreyhoundMama's picture
Posts: 76
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
you're all men, right?

Unless I missed something, you're all men. To those of you who understand that an unwanted pregnancy IS a medical problem, thank you. To the one of you who does NOT understand that, you confuse me. They used birth control. It failed. We can argue all we want about whether they could have used another kind, or two kinds, the fact is that they didn't. There may VERY well be good medical reasons why they didn't. Almost EVERY birth control method EXCEPT the condom poses health risks to the woman.

Pregnancy as a health problem. You bet your ass it is. NINE months of nurturing something growing in your belly. NINE months of your life, having to give things up, risk DEATH if things go wrong, and basically do everything in your power to be a good incubator, when you didn't plan to, didn't prepare properly, and don't want to.

Imagine NINE months of your life carrying an increasingly heavy weight in your belly. Imagine the toll that takes on your joints, your legs, your back, and your emotions as the hormones go crazy.

Pregnancy can be joyful for those who want it, but I promise you, for those of us who don't want children, it's a TRULY FRIGHTENING prospect. When health problems required my hysterectomy, it was one of the happiest days of my life, because I was no longer at risk of this "non" health problem.

And before you yell, YES I like kids. My brother's kids are awesome! So what? That has nothing to do with whether I want a parasite growing in my belly for nine months to create another one when the planet is already overpopulated. And that is why an unwanted pregnancy is a health problem. To a woman who does not want a child, it is a parasitic being, taking her energy and seriously impacting her life for NINE months.

Karen and her hounds
creating art ~ creating a new life


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
GreyhoundMama

GreyhoundMama wrote:

Unless I missed something, you're all men. To those of you who understand that an unwanted pregnancy IS a medical problem, thank you. To the one of you who does NOT understand that, you confuse me. They used birth control. It failed. We can argue all we want about whether they could have used another kind, or two kinds, the fact is that they didn't.

Their problem.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
There may VERY well be good medical reasons why they didn't. Almost EVERY birth control method EXCEPT the condom poses health risks to the woman.

Ever here of abstinence? Their responsibility. Their inconvenience. THEIR CHOICE. Not the doctors.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
Pregnancy as a health problem. You bet your ass it is.

No it isn't.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
NINE months of nurturing something growing in your belly.

Not a health problem.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
NINE months of your life, having to give things up,

Not a health problem.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
risk DEATH if things go wrong,

Less risk than crossing the street.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
and basically do everything in your power to be a good incubator, when you didn't plan to, didn't prepare properly, and don't want to.

Still nothing to do with inherrent health problems.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
Imagine NINE months of your life carrying an increasingly heavy weight in your belly.

Not a health problem. And plenty of time to abort an unwanted baby if the pill couldn't be taken in the first day.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
Imagine the toll that takes on your joints, your legs, your back, and your emotions as the hormones go crazy.

Still nothing.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
Pregnancy can be joyful for those who want it, but I promise you, for those of us who don't want children, it's a TRULY FRIGHTENING prospect.

Then they should take appropriate action and quit whining about a doctor that had nothing to do with their immaturity or lack of responsibility.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
When health problems required my hysterectomy, it was one of the happiest days of my life, because I was no longer at risk of this "non" health problem.

You could have had one at any time if it were that important to you.

GreyhoundMama wrote:
And before you yell, YES I like kids. My brother's kids are awesome! So what? That has nothing to do with whether I want a parasite growing in my belly for nine months to create another one when the planet is already overpopulated. And that is why an unwanted pregnancy is a health problem. To a woman who does not want a child, it is a parasitic being, taking her energy and seriously impacting her life for NINE months.

No, it's a massive flaw in judgement and responsibility, and projecting that failing into others. It's pathetic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Be serious. Abstinence is

Be serious. Abstinence is NOT an acceptable choice for a normal person.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Normal people take a risk

Normal people take a risk every time they have sex if they consider possible side effects a problem. There's a line I draw at protecting people from their stupidity. This is it. You want to have sex, then have it. I do. I don't bitch and moan about my own stupidity and project it onto a doctor if something goes wrong though.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GreyhoundMama
GreyhoundMama's picture
Posts: 76
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
if ...

Obviously we see the world completely differently. So be it.

Now, if there were a god, and if this god was a loving god who truly cared about the health and welfare of all it's citizens, then the default for sex now that the world is over populated, would be no-pregnancy. If a couple wanted children they'd flip a switch to turn on the ability to have a baby instead of the other way around.

Abstinence works for some of us. Trust me, I know. It's been years since ... well, you know. But I think it's pretty obvious that for most people, especially young people, it's just not likely to ever be a successful strategy.

And this brings up another difference between the average Christian belief (or at least what they state their belief is) and the rest of us. Christians will claim that sex has one purpose. To procreate. I find that purpose very limited, and clearly doesn't match the real world experience of most people. Sex is fun. It's joyful. It helps to bond a couple to each other and enrich and deepen their relationship. The puritans who decided that sex was evil, and who spread that fear and belief all over the world, have a lot to answer for. Repression of such a fundamental human need is a major cause of pain for a lot of people.

Karen and her hounds
creating art ~ creating a new life


Unlucky13
Unlucky13's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
This makes me wanna get more

This makes me wanna get more tattoos. Fuck it. I think I'll get one in honor of this event Laughing out loud