Doctors overstepping the mark

  • Thread starter Thread starter Karenanna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Karenanna

Guest
I visited the dermatologist the other day (to get the stitches out from my operation to remove a skin cancer). While I was in the waiting room, I picked up a brochure on acme. There were some funny cartoons on it depicting animals worrying about their acme. It had some good information on it about the skin condition and then towards the end of the brochure it mentioned a drug which is used for acme is all else fails and if the acme is severe. I was impressed that it mentioned possible harm to: unborn babies. They actually used those words, not the word: fetus, so the doctors writing the brochure acknowledged that the unborn are real people. The brochure was spoiled by the last bit of information. It said that the dermatologist should counsel the patient who was going to be prescribed the ‘acme’ drug to take suitable contraception! Doctors have no right to tell patients to do this. Contraception is an intrinsic evil and in some case it is even an abortifacient i.e. causes an abortion.

Unrelated but useful information

Help from Heaven (Answers to Prayer) can be read free on line at: missionbell.homestead.com/HelpFromHeavenBook.html

I have added several new stories of answers to prayer to the book.
 
You’re right, but by law I think they have to tell you if a certain drug could cause harm to an unborn baby. To most doctors, using ABC while on such a drug makes medical sense.
 
Its acne not acme but anyway…is it responsible for a dr to prescribe contraception to a sexually active person who is using a medicine that has been proven to maim fetus’ in the eyes of the world, yes. Even though artificial contraceptive is an abortofact it is the worlds way of telling people. YOU SHOULD NOT GET PREGNANT ON THIS MEDICINE.

In no way was this legally overstepping bounds, infact it may be the only way the FDA approved its use.

Morally, of course it was, but people don’t live in a world ruled by the catholic church.

It also noted that the patient should ask their dr so they take suitable contraception…it didn’t say that the patient should or must or even that they take it…just that they should be aware of the consequences of sexual activity under this medicine.
 
purplesunshine said:
Its acne not acme but anyway…is it responsible for a dr to prescribe contraception to a sexually active person who is using a medicine that has been proven to maim fetus’ in the eyes of the world, yes. Even though artificial contraceptive is an abortofact it is the worlds way of telling people. YOU SHOULD NOT GET PREGNANT ON THIS MEDICINE.

In no way was this legally overstepping bounds, infact it may be the only way the FDA approved its use.

Morally, of course it was, but people don’t live in a world ruled by the catholic church.

It also noted that the patient should ask their dr so they take suitable contraception…it didn’t say that the patient should or must or even that they take it…just that they should be aware of the consequences of sexual activity under this medicine.
Click to expand...
I was not talking about doctors overstepping legal boundaries. Legal boundaries allow doctors to kill unborn babies. I was talking about doctors overstepping moral boundaries.

Since I am in Australia the acme drug is not covered by the FDA, but by whatever mob in Canberra (the Australian national capital) approve these things.
 
EVERY woman who has ever been pregnant with a wanted baby knows that it is a baby inside her and have no qualms saying it. (Ever seen a maternity T shirt with “Fetus On Board” in that yellow diamond???)

It’s only when the baby is unwanted that the verbal games, rationalizing and hand waving begins.
 
Suitable contraception could be abstinence. I can see how a doctor might feel that even ABC is appropriate. Just something to think about: which is worse taking the ABC or not taking it and getting pregnant, but having the acne meds kill the baby. I’m not saying that this is the better choice than abstaining, but I think it’s something to think about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top