- Status
J
jediliz
Guest
Good for the doctor! The pill has backup mechanisms designed to make womb hostile and cause chemical abortions. Plus, those nasty side effects like blood clots and risk for breast cancer the longer you use it.
B
Brendan
Guest
I wish more doctors were like that
H
hadulzo
Guest
There is a strong case of “do no harm” since birth control pills are bad for patients. Known carcinogens etc. I am sure there are doctors out there that don’t prescribe because it is bad medicine.
S
SWolf
Guest
At least her former customers had the courtesy to get a new doctor and not try to sue her into oblivion.
My family’s doctor does not prescribe BC either.
W
Windmill
Guest
We have doctors in town that do the same thing. May their tribes increase.
T
thequeen
Guest
We need more doctors like her.
A
ARSpade
Guest
I know two women who almost died of blood clots due to the Pill.
My wife took it once, and has a foot condition. Pretty much every time she goes in for leg pain when she was running the doc did an ultrasound to check for clots even though it’s been years and years since she was on the stuff (long before she came back to the Church). Every time.
My wife notes that when she took Sex Ed the Pill was talked about like it was The Greatest Thing Ever. The blood clots were never mentioned. Nor the behavioral changes.
So, yeah, there’s a host of reasons that aren’t religious at all to advise people not to take hormonal BC.
A
AnneElizabeth
Guest
Doctors have the right to refuse to prescribe a medication. I’m surprised the woman in the article is outraged. This happens all the time with other types of medications with other patients (just read all the articles about people in pain wanting pain killers for relief but being denied… very controversial, -I’m not choosing sides here just denoting facts- but this is all along the same lines.)
A doctor is not a dispenser of any medication you want when you go in there an ask for it. The doctor gets to decide what is best, after all they are the ones with the knowledge/schooling/expertise.
Part of the problem also is that we’ve reached a time in history, where the religion of your doctor DOES matter. There are just too many ‘health’ styles mixed with religion/beliefs. A suggestion from a doctor for an abortion might be a relief for one patient, while its an absolute atrocity and shocking for another. What someone believes is essentially how they will treat (medicate, prescribe, suggest) you. I think its supposed to be ethically ‘neutral’ but articles like this show it really can’t be. AND furthermore, atheism is not a ‘neutral’ belief system either like some people think it is. I sometimes think the majority of people feel this is better to have a doctor who doesn’t believe ‘in anything’… * and you want to put your life in that person’s hands because…??? *
A doctor is not a dispenser of any medication you want when you go in there an ask for it. The doctor gets to decide what is best, after all they are the ones with the knowledge/schooling/expertise.
Part of the problem also is that we’ve reached a time in history, where the religion of your doctor DOES matter. There are just too many ‘health’ styles mixed with religion/beliefs. A suggestion from a doctor for an abortion might be a relief for one patient, while its an absolute atrocity and shocking for another. What someone believes is essentially how they will treat (medicate, prescribe, suggest) you. I think its supposed to be ethically ‘neutral’ but articles like this show it really can’t be. AND furthermore, atheism is not a ‘neutral’ belief system either like some people think it is. I sometimes think the majority of people feel this is better to have a doctor who doesn’t believe ‘in anything’… * and you want to put your life in that person’s hands because…??? *
S
SWolf
Guest
I remember when my sister had a near-fatal stroke in her twenties. The doctors asked my folks several times if they were SURE she was not taking birth control. She wasn’t, but it did shock me how the nurses kept prying, like that sort of thing was common.
A
AnneElizabeth
Guest
My sympathy for the suffering caused by the pill, but the problem with what you say here is that MANY prescribed drugs can cause severe problems for patients… its kind of a Russian roulette. There is always that small percentage of people who might have a very bad or even deadly reaction to something prescribed and one won’t know until they try it. I do believe that all medications should have write ups of all the known side effects and let the PATIENT decide if they will take it or not. (That’s what steams me… they don’t tel the patient… .what a way to totally RUIN and obliterate patient/doctor trust which is necessary and, used to be at least, somewhat of a sacred, protected thing.)
C
Corki
Guest
Not sure why this is “news”. No offense to you, Abyssinia, but it must have been a slow news day at WILX. There have been NFP-only GYNs for as long as the Pill has been legal. They are hard to find when you want one but this is not something new.
It may be that since Obamacare required employers to cover ABC, patients erroneously thought this would also mean that doctors were required to prescribe ABC.
M
MacBP
Guest
Outrage surrounding a physician’s refusal to provide birth control appears to be a perennial issue that pokes its head above the soil every year. The outcome generally depends on the region.
In Ontario, for instance, the right to conscientious objections on the grounds of religion or other ethical principles took big hit. If a physician refuses to provide a service he must provide a referral (read: he must actively work to ensure that the patient finds a physician willing to provide that service) or, in emergency situations, he must stuff his objection and perform the service anyways. In some cases this makes no sense; one wonders why an Ontario physician is forced to refer for an Abortion when there is not need for a referral, and when the referral process tends to slow down access. But I digress…
It all comes down to the fact that birth control is so widely used and culturally ubiquitous that its inconceivable that a physician might object to providing those services. They feel like the physician is casting moral condemnation on that and many feel as though their physician is “preventing” them from receiving those services.
I don’t think that physicians objecting on conscientious grounds have done a great job of countering that narrative. It does help, however, to be upfront with what services a physician will or will not provide when initially receiving a patient. That prevents patients from being “surprised” and gives them the opportunity to look elsewhere if necessary. Unfortunately, however,t he cultural milieu is such that no decision or approach will prevent the torrent of anger that comes from following one’s conscience.
In Ontario, for instance, the right to conscientious objections on the grounds of religion or other ethical principles took big hit. If a physician refuses to provide a service he must provide a referral (read: he must actively work to ensure that the patient finds a physician willing to provide that service) or, in emergency situations, he must stuff his objection and perform the service anyways. In some cases this makes no sense; one wonders why an Ontario physician is forced to refer for an Abortion when there is not need for a referral, and when the referral process tends to slow down access. But I digress…
It all comes down to the fact that birth control is so widely used and culturally ubiquitous that its inconceivable that a physician might object to providing those services. They feel like the physician is casting moral condemnation on that and many feel as though their physician is “preventing” them from receiving those services.
I don’t think that physicians objecting on conscientious grounds have done a great job of countering that narrative. It does help, however, to be upfront with what services a physician will or will not provide when initially receiving a patient. That prevents patients from being “surprised” and gives them the opportunity to look elsewhere if necessary. Unfortunately, however,t he cultural milieu is such that no decision or approach will prevent the torrent of anger that comes from following one’s conscience.
M
MacBP
Guest
First of all, I agree that a physician or practice that won’t offer contraceptive services should make known when a patient first attaches themselves to the doctor. Secondly, I would add that physicians have an obligation to provide complete and accurate information about all available treatments, even if they aren’t willing to provide that treatment. I would even go so far as to say that physicians should suggest physicians or clinics that can help a patient obtain those services. On these three points, I think that most conscientious objecting physicians would agree.
Secondly, it’s important to note that physicians aren’t medication vending machines. Yes, I think that a patient has the right to receive birth control if appropriate. That isn’t the issue here. The issue is whether a patient has a right to force every clinician they meet to provide those services. Should Dr. X be forced to provide the pill when Dr. Y will across the street? Should a physician be forced to actively participate in an activity they may find immoral? Especially when, in reality, there are other accessible avenues for a patient to pursue? Does the threat of inconvenience (and in every case of outrage that I’ve seen, this is really what it amounts to) trump duty to act ethically as they see fit?
In my opinion, the answer is no. We would be better off accepting that not everyone will do what we want — on both sides of the issue — and willing to live and let live.
I
Ite_ad_Ioseph
Guest
Some people need birth control medication to help with poly cystic ovarian issues.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
I don’t know where you live, but around here and in most places all medications come with a full write-up from the pharmacy. I have never received a prescription in the past -I can’t recall how many years- that did not. A doctor at the time of the visit cannot possibly be expected to know all the possible side effects of a medication, nor spend the time looking it up for every drug he prescribes before the patient leaves the office. That is why the pharmacies provide the information. He is, however, responsible for knowing the most common and deadly side effects, and answering the patient’s questions about medication to the best of his ability. He also should be sure his patients understand the reason for the drug and ask if there are any questions.
Also, we as patients need to be proactive about our own care. If you are concerned, refuse the prescription until you can visit the pharmacy, which will provide a writeup, or look it up on the internet. Also, there are always those who experience side effects not previously known–that happened to me once. Remember, too, that pharmacists specialize in drugs and are a valuable source of information, which Drs. will consult regarding medications. There is no need to be uninformed about the medication one is taking in this day and age.
M
Meagan34
Guest
I would hope she makes her refusal to do this clearly and publicly so others won’t have to waste a co-pay if that’s what they are specifically seeking. She should continue her practice as she wishes and sees fit but other patients that don’t share her way of thinking should not have to find out about her beliefs after they have already paid, especially if they are simply seeking a birth control prescription. 
C
Corki
Guest
That is incorrect. Some people need hormone medication to help with polycystic ovarian issues. Often the most common packaging of these medications is as birth control. But in those cases, the medication is not birth control/contraception. The doctor’s letter said she would continue to prescribe medications for those conditions, just not as BC pills.
T
TCEL
Guest
Last I checked, both my pediatrician and OBGYN won’t prescribe it, and their practices seem to be flourishing.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
As well as other medical issues.
I don’t think the doctor knows Catholic teaching well and is probably getting her information from someone who is also misinformed. In the letter shown in the still you can see she writes that she will not prescribe medications like depo provera, whether or not it is used for contraception. Depo provera and depo lupron were option a past gyn discussed with me to treat fibroids. I didn’t like that option; the cure sounded worse than the disease to me at the time. However, there was nothing morally wrong with those medications as treatment for fibroids or any other non-contraceptive use.
It’s one thing to follow Catholic teaching, it’s quite another to promote erroneous teachings and ultimately cause scandal.
Also, Ms. Gauthier needs to chill. When my former GP rolled her eyes at me I wasn’t hurt; I found another doctor. A better one, in the same office. That Ms. Gauthier is “hurt” by this is silly and the doctor is not “pushing her beliefs on her.” What a drama queen (I should probably cut her some slack since she was being recorded at the time and maybe didn’t express herself very well.) This goes for Catholics and other religious or anti-religious folks who don’t like when someone with different beliefs refuses to prescribe a contraceptive or puts a bumper sticker on their car. They are not imposing their beliefs on you they are expressing *their *beliefs. Yes, I’ve seen the words “impose” and “force” used by various people. It’s so overwrought.
- Status