Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

  • partial_accumen
    link
    fedilink
    375
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • harmonea
      link
      fedilink
      117
      edit-2
      9 months 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        29 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        9 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          189 months 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      899 months 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.

    • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      839 months 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.

    • snooggums
      link
      fedilink
      299 months ago

      Or, and hear me out, don’t let them deny medical care based on their religion.

        • snooggums
          link
          fedilink
          19 months 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.

          • @irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            39 months ago

            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”.

    • Ech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      279 months 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.

      • @afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        39 months 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        19 months 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      49 months 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.

      • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        99 months 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.

        • Dark Arc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          29 months ago

          IMO that’s more of an insurance issue and a fair competition issue.

          • @HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            39 months 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.

            • Dark Arc
              link
              fedilink
              English
              19 months ago

              Hmm… yeah or at least, maybe not be permitted to set policy for an entire hospital?