Doctor Who Won't See Women Who Weigh More Than 200 Pounds
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
Is that the oath with the preserve life and do no harm crap? That might not be relevant to some.
Even if the doc was against abortion he could have counselled her to not get one. Refusal to even counsel a woman about abortion could result in harm to her and/or her baby.
That's not what was said. It was said that he refused to counsel single women about birth control. Or do you consider abortion as being a viable birth control method?
So, how does not counseling single women about birth control contravene his oath?
That's the one. It's relevant to most doctors. It likely isn't terribly relevant to admen, engineers, animal trainers, accountants, etc. You're right.
Ah, so single women aren't really women. I see. Besides, what harm would it do to counsel her on the hazards of birth control?
Only for medical reasons. I thought I had made that clear a number of times.
If his refusal to counsel results in her trying it herself or getting some butcher to do it (if she did ibndeed want an abortion)? You are joking right?
This particular gynecologist was even worse than that. She would not discuss any form of contraceptive with a woman unless they were married, She would take the clients on before the situation arose, but since it most gynecologists there were fairly highly booked, it was difficult for people to switch when they already had a gynecologist.
As I see it, people who open their doors to the public should be enjoined from distinguishing their clientele. Accept clients only by referral if you want to be picky.
Wow.... and people say I'm fixated on abortion. In my mind, not counseling someone on birth control has nothing to do with abortion. They are 2 separate issues.
Sounds like someone who gives her priority about religion preference over her priority of her profession and the possible health of people.
Not counseling someone for abortion has nothing to do with abortion? I hope you are able to see the silliness in your assertion and are willing to retract it.
I did put in parentheses, "If she did indeed want an abortion". In case you haven't been around much, some women do use abortion as a means of birth control.
Either way, and as I asked before, what harm would it do to counsel her on birth control?
She was Catholic, and she pushed the standard Catholic view on the issue quite heavily. The only birth control methods she would advise were rhythm method and the more accurate derivatives. Probably a better name for that class of birth control, but... meh.
Well, she could have even advised the woman according to that, but you said she refused advising altogether. She sounds like a female version of coldstream.
So is refusing a patient based on weight.
I went to a new GP after moving once and he said he would only take me as a patient if I agreed to quit smoking within 90 days. I booked 5 more appointments just to waste his time like he wasted mine and never went back.
Physicians seem to forget their job is to provide the healthcare we want and require, not the care they think we should have and certainly not to tell us how to live our lives.
Actually it might have done some good to counsel her. She might not get up the duff and therefore would never need an abortion.
The issues are quite related Gerry. Because of this so-called doctor's refusal to discuss or issue birth control to single ladies how many unwanted pregnancies have occurred? I would suggest that if a patient who she wouldn't give birth control too got pregnant and had an abortion the doctor could be said to be directly responsible.
So, counseling abstinence (which is the only 100% sure way of birth control) would be making one responsible for abortion? Really?
I really need to hear the reasoning behind this one. Should be ultimate in the "not my fault it's someone elses" excuse category.
Maybe she does not have a weight problem. I have a friend that is well over 200 lbs. Course she is also about 6-3.
At the very least the doc should explain the various methods of birth control available. And more important the potential consequences of not using birth control at all.
If someone goes to their doctor and says "I'm gonna have sex and want to be safe" and the doctor refuses to discuss it for their own personal reasons they are not putting the welfare of their patient first, which they are supposed to do, therefore have to assume some responsibility for any outcome. Does the patient bear responsibility also, of course, but would their actions or the outcome be different if they had received proper counselling, including abstinence, and effective birth control, most likely.
Point is Gerry, the doctor swears an oath to put the welfare of the patient ahead of their personal beliefs and this dumb b*itch isn't doing that. She needs her license revoked.