Mother Angry Doc Refused Morning After Pill To Raped Daughter
Doctor Said Religious Beliefs Prevented Him From Administering Pill

POSTED: 6:14 pm EDT August 8, 2006
UPDATED: 11:00 pm EDT August 8, 2006

A firestorm of controversy has erupted over a young woman who was denied emergency contraception after she said she was raped.

The victim's outraged mother spoke on camera for the first time with Lu Ann Cahn and the NBC 10 Investigators.

The emergency room doctor in this case said it is against his religious beliefs to give out what has been called the morning after pill, even after a rape. The morning after pill is a high dose of birth control medicine that can prevent pregnancy.

Some state politicians and the mother of the alleged rape victim said they believe refusing to administer the pill should be against the law.

"He wasn't the victim, she was and he made her more of one," said Darlene Bender, the victim's mother.

Bender's daughter was raped almost two weeks ago in front of their rural Lebanon County home.

"He didn't care that she was raped. He cared that his Christian values be followed. My daughter's not some tramp and he didn't have the right to make those judgment calls," Bender said.

Dr. Martin Gish, a Mennonite, was quoted in a local newspaper saying, "The dilemma I have is the whole rape issue. Which side are you more concerned with? Are you more concerned about the mother or the life that was possibly created? That's my dilemma."

"It should not be a religious issue. This pill prevents conception and besides that, even if they think I'm wrong, abortions are legal. Get over it. Get over it. You don't have the right to make that decision for someone else and I, personally, I'm Catholic," Bender said.

The Pennsylvania Catholic Health Association said the Catholic Church allows emergency contraception in the case of rape if tests for pregnancy and ovulation are negative.

"Plan B and emergency contraception is a lie. It's not contraception, it's an abortafacia," said George Isajiw, an internist and member of Physicians For Life.

Isajiw, a physician in Lansdowne, supports Gish's decision. He believes the morning after pill destroys life -- a newly-fertilized egg before it implants in the uterus.

"I congratulate him for not giving them, because the first principal of medicine is 'Do no harm.' I want to thank him for his stupidity and his non-compassion for one of his patients," Gish said.

State Sen. Connie Williams said the one good thing Gish did was to draw attention to a bill she is proposing in Harrisburg. She said currently about 50 percent of hospitals do not offer the morning after pill to rape victims. Her bill would make it a law that hospitals must at least inform a rape victim of what her options are.

"One of the options is the emergency contraception," Williams said.

"He was no better than the man who attacked her in the first place," Bender said.

Bender said Gish never informed her daughter she had options and, in the end, she had to call her private physician and drive 45 minutes to find a pharmacy to give her the morning after pill.

"I will keep that man in the news. I will keep that hospital in the news. If he cannot do what is right for a woman, then he needs to step away," Bender said.

Bender said she plans to testify in Harrisburg. Gish told Cahn on the phone that his hospital wouldn't allow him to comment for the story.

Hospitals in New Jersey are already required by law to inform rape victims of all options and provide emergency contraception if it is requested.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9649699/detail.html

I don't think doctors should be able to put how they feel over patients personal welfare.. but some drs do and they won't change willingly

Doctors always do what they feel is right concerning patients. You have decided that this doctor placed his feeling over the patient's welfare. Obviously he didn't agree with you. He felt it would be wrong to give her the pill.

The girl and her parents had other options which is obvious since they got the morning after pill somewhere else.

Although I think the Doctor is an asshole, he has the right to refuse to sign any Rx.

Although I think the Doctor is an asshole, he has the right to refuse to sign any Rx.

I agree on both points. Doctors agree to do no harm, if the doctor thinks an abortion is doing harm, I don't see how you can make him change his opinion to match your opinion. Having said that, there should be some mechanism to make sure everyone can get legal drugs.

The Pennsylvania Catholic Health Association said the Catholic Church allows emergency contraception in the case of rape if tests for pregnancy and ovulation are negative.

So in other words, if there's nothing there to abort, the Catholic Church is OK with you aborting the nothing. :rolleyes:

Emergency contraception is prescribed for emergencies. If this doctor is unwilling to prescribe it for a rape victim he shouldn't be working in an emergency room.

Although I think the Doctor is an asshole, he has the right to refuse to sign any Rx.I agree....But anyone that would refuse to sing,IS AN ASSHOLE (Like you said)

Emergency contraception is prescribed for emergencies. If this doctor is unwilling to prescribe it for a rape victim he shouldn't be working in an emergency room.

He should have his liscense pulled, and be forbidden to practice medicine.

Maybe he could relocate to some sub-Saharan country, and practice as a witch doctor.

It would suit him far better.

I agree on both points. Doctors agree to do no harm, if the doctor thinks an abortion is doing harm, I don't see how you can make him change his opinion to match your opinion. Having said that, there should be some mechanism to make sure everyone can get legal drugs.



So in other words, if there's nothing there to abort, the Catholic Church is OK with you aborting the nothing. :rolleyes:

The morning after pill is not an abortion. It prevents pregnancy, but if you are already pregnant, it doesn't stop the pregnancy from continuing, thats why you only have so long to use it.

I think the MD on duty in the ER should have taken steps to remove himself from the roster, knowing full well he may be confronted with a situation requiring the use of the morning after pill.

He should have his liscense pulled, and be forbidden to practice medicine.
Although I disagree with the doctor’s decision, I think that's going a little far.

I'll second that, Prae.

I think the MD on duty in the ER should have taken steps to remove himself from the roster, knowing full well he may be confronted with a situation requiring the use of the morning after pill.

My only issue with that is that it's not quite the same level of emergency as a broken arm or chest wound or something. There is more time to do something. Now if he refuses to perform an abortion on a fetus that is causing major immediate harm to the mother, then he needs to get out.

My only issue with that is that it's not quite the same level of emergency as a broken arm or chest wound or something. There is more time to do something. Now if he refuses to perform an abortion on a fetus that is causing major immediate harm to the mother, then he needs to get out.

You have at the most 72 hours.. but the longer you wait, the bigger risk of getting pregnant, and in that case the pill isn't effective.

My only issue with that is that it's not quite the same level of emergency as a broken arm or chest wound or something. There is more time to do something. Now if he refuses to perform an abortion on a fetus that is causing major immediate harm to the mother, then he needs to get out.
Agreed.

You have at the most 72 hours.. but the longer you wait, the bigger risk of getting pregnant, and in that case the pill isn't effective.

It took them only forty five minutes to find a doctor who would prescribe the pill. They still had days left. Seventy two hours is three days, not hardly a period of time so short it necessitate THAT doctor prescribing the pill.

Frogger, they could probably win a lawsuit on emotional damages alone. It most certainly is not an issue of whether or not she could have gotten the pill anywhere else, it's the amount of emotional trauma that she went through from the rape, and then the crash and burn of her hope that she wont get pregnant, because hospitals give out morning after pills. It's torture. Rape victims from the start are scarred for life, must we add in a doctors downright refusal to administer help? He may have thought he was following his Hippocratic Oath--where in fact medical science disagrees with his viewpoint--but instead he decided to harm somebody even more. The doctor was wrong, selfish, unethical and a downright asshole. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

BlibBlob, you are substituting your view of what is right for the doctor's view of what is right. He is under no obligation to change his views to conform to yours.

Had the girl been unable to obtain the morning after pill somewhere else she might have had a legitimate complaint but since she easily received the pill less than an hour later she has no legitimate complaint.

So you don't think there would be any emotional trauma from being denied the morning after pill after being raped?

Apparently not.

Frogger, you actually agree with what he did?

Frogger, they could probably win a lawsuit on emotional damages alone. It most certainly is not an issue of whether or not she could have gotten the pill anywhere else, it's the amount of emotional trauma that she went through from the rape, and then the crash and burn of her hope that she wont get pregnant, because hospitals give out morning after pills. It's torture. Rape victims from the start are scarred for life, must we add in a doctors downright refusal to administer help? He may have thought he was following his Hippocratic Oath--where in fact medical science disagrees with his viewpoint--but instead he decided to harm somebody even more. The doctor was wrong, selfish, unethical and a downright asshole. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

Thats a hard sell. 2 different doctors may prescribe different things and have different views. For example - 1 doctor may prescribe percocet for a broken arm, another may say take some Tylenol.

The doctor did not deny her care, he denied to write a presciption for a specific drug that he did not believe appropriate. That's a doctors call on all medications & I imagine he would quite successfully hide behind that should a lawsuit arise. It would be hard for the girl to prove any emotional damage against the doctor.

I think the doctor was heartless and dogmatic to say the least, but I don't agree he should be struck off, sent to the Sahara, or sued. The girl got the pills very quickly elsewhere & no doubt the doctor explained his reasons why he would not prescribe what she wanted.

Frogger, you actually agree with what he did?
Frogger is perhaps the most pro-life member of these boards. He is against all abortions, even in the case of rape (like here), unless the life of the mother is in danger. Besides, even if you do not agree, you can defend the doctor's right to do what he did.

Would you defend a pharmacist in a similar postition? Take one who receives a valid perscription for the morning after pill & refuses to dispense it based on their own beliefs, yet the medication is stocked in the pharmacy.

Would you defend a pharmacist in a similar postition? Take one who receives a valid perscription for the morning after pill & refuses to dispense it based on their own beliefs, yet the medication is stocked in the pharmacy.
The doctor who prescribed the medication is not the same as the pharmacist who dispenses it. A doctor is within his boundaries to refuse to prescribe anything, while a pharmacist's job is simply to fill the doctor's prescriptions, refusal to do it on moral grounds or what have you, is abandoning their job and duty. I would not agree with the pharmacist if they did that, or the doctor in the article mentioned, but I can see quite plainly how one could come to the defense of the doctor's actions.

Here is the thing, the morning after pill IS NOT an abortion. I don't know why people get them confused and personally I think that doctor is a horrible person and a bad doctor bc he denied that girl the pill to PREVENT pregnancy. If that poor girl was already pregnant, then the pill doesn't do a thing. And YES 45 mins can make a difference because the sperm could reach and fertilize that egg in the extra time. You have 72 hours to take it, but it has no effect once the egg is fertilized with the sperm, so the faster the better.

The doctor who prescribed the medication is not the same as the pharmacist who dispenses it. A doctor is within his boundaries to refuse to prescribe anything, while a pharmacist's job is simply to fill the doctor's prescriptions, refusal to do it on moral grounds or what have you, is abandoning their job and duty.

A doctor is certainly not within his boundaries to refuse to prescribe life-saving medications, so I think we can assume you didn't mean those. I assume you meant a doctor can refuse to prescribe medications he doen't believe will be efficacious for the condition he's treating...oh wait, that doesn't work either.

It seems to me that at least part of the doctor's job is to do what's best for the patient, and in this case, the doctor "abandoned his job and duty".

The doctor did not deny her care, he denied to write a presciption for a specific drug that he did not believe appropriate.

The doctor did deny her care. She came to him with a specific complaint, and she requested a specific cure. He denied her this care, not for medical reasons, but because of his personal ethical dilemma, which has no place in the treatment of any patient. She had a right to care based on her beliefs, not his.

You'll have to present your case with a law that requires doctors to prescribe the medications that the paitient demands.

You'll have to present your case with a law that requires doctors to prescribe the medications that the paitient demands.

I thought we were discussing ethics. What's the law got to do with it?

Would you defend a pharmacist in a similar postition? Take one who receives a valid perscription for the morning after pill & refuses to dispense it based on their own beliefs, yet the medication is stocked in the pharmacy.

Yes I would, 100%. If you do not like the policies of a local pharmacy go to another one or wait until a different pharmacist is one duty. Were I a pharmacist I would not dispense the morning after pill.

The doctor did deny her care. She came to him with a specific complaint, and she requested a specific cure.

Guess what Vilepagan. There are times when I go to my doctor with a specific complaint and request a specific cure. Guess what again. Sometimes my doctor(s) say no.

I thought we were discussing ethics.
I'm certainly not talking about the ethics of the situation, because in that case I disagree with the doctor's decision (as I have already stated). But, I know of no reason why he is required to give that woman a prescription for the "morning after pill." AFAIK, doctors are not restricted from letting their personal morals get in the way of their medical practice.

How about if the doctor is a Christian Scientist? Should he have the option to tell you to pray your appendix doesn't burst?

The doctor did deny her care. She came to him with a specific complaint, and she requested a specific cure.

Guess what Vilepagan. There are times when I go to my doctor with a specific complaint and request a specific cure. Guess what again. Sometimes my doctor(s) say no.

Would you feel comfortable knowing he was making these decisions for other than medical reasons?

How about if the doctor is a Christian Scientist? Should he have the option to tell you to pray your appendix doesn't burst?Is that doctor required to treat me?

But, I know of no reason why he is required to give that woman a prescription for the "morning after pill." AFAIK, doctors are not restricted from letting their personal morals get in the way of their medical practice.

I didn't say it was required, and you're right, the doctor can decide to base his decisions on something other than medicine, but would you want to avail yourself of his services knowing this?

The doctor has broken no laws, but IMO he's not much of a doctor. He'll get the punishment he deserves. His name will be in the papers, and on TV, and no doubt some people will find a different doctor.

If I was on the hospital administrative staff, I would make sure he was no longer working for my hospital. I know personally how something such as sexual assult or rape makes a person feel and that dr only made it that much worse. Sadly, a person remembers how people react after the event as much as they do what happened to them in the first place.

How about if the doctor is a Christian Scientist? Should he have the option to tell you to pray your appendix doesn't burst?

No, a bursting appendix is a medical condition where the life/health of the person is at stake. He would be wrong to deny treatment that could mitigate the health issue.

Refusing to prescribe an abortion pill is not related to any health risk. Her life nor health were at risk. The doctor was well within his rights to refuse the Rx, the doctor didn't rape her & cannot be held accountable for it.

From the article:
"Hospitals in New Jersey are already required by law to inform rape victims of all options and provide emergency contraception if it is requested."
Alright, so the law issue is now fully out of the way.

I think the doctor was heartless and dogmatic to say the least, but I don't agree he should be struck off, sent to the Sahara, or sued. The girl got the pills very quickly elsewhere & no doubt the doctor explained his reasons why he would not prescribe what she wanted.
In a traumatic situation such as that, how long exactly is fourty-five minutes? In a traumatic situation such as that, how good would an explaination from a selfish doctor sound? He refused to take care of her. Refusing to administer that pill was not for health reasons, it was not because it would be worthless and wasteful. It was for absolutely no reason that a doctor would have had if say they refused you morphine. It was selfish, it was cruel, it was wrong. And frankly, I don't think he should be an emergency room doctor anymore. It's quite hard to request a different doctor in an emergency room, they're generally busy.

Yes I would, 100%. If you do not like the policies of a local pharmacy go to another one or wait until a different pharmacist is one duty. Were I a pharmacist I would not dispense the morning after pill.
And you would be rightly fired for refusing to do your job. You're not paid to question a doctors motives unless it would severely harm the patient your giving the drugs to. And medical science and the FDA does not believe that the morning after pill is harmful to the patient. Therefore, you would be wrong, fired and everything would be fine. That is, unless you refusing to administer the drug got that person pregnant and then, you'd be sued.

I'm certainly not talking about the ethics of the situation, because in that case I disagree with the doctor's decision (as I have already stated). But, I know of no reason why he is required to give that woman a prescription for the "morning after pill." AFAIK, doctors are not restricted from letting their personal morals get in the way of their medical practice.
If it's not in the best interests of their patients they most certainly are. The doctor would be sued. He would both be required by law and by his ethics. Unfortunately we have too few doctors that understand the psychological ramifications of their actions. One doctor, such as this one, who doesn't understand, is far too large of a number.

Refusing to prescribe an abortion pill is not related to any health risk. Her life nor health were at risk. The doctor was well within his rights to refuse the Rx, the doctor didn't rape her & cannot be held accountable for it.
As I stated, her emotional health was at risk, and the doctor followed the incorrect method of providing help. He was legally, medically, ethically, and morally wrong. In every shape and form. He most certainly is not a good man. I hope he'll lose his job, from either of being no use to the emergency room or because he got sued out the bahoozy and his insurance rates are too high.

As I stated, her emotional health was at risk, and the doctor followed the incorrect method of providing help. He was legally, medically, ethically, and morally wrong. In every shape and form. He most certainly is not a good man. I hope he'll lose his job, from either of being no use to the emergency room or because he got sued out the bahoozy and his insurance rates are too high.

A doctor is not responsible for your emotional health.

A doctor is not responsible for your emotional health.

I disagree. A doctor is responsible for all aspects of their patients health.

I disagree. A doctor is responsible for all aspects of their patients health.

Incorrect if you are willing to use the term "emotional health" - that is not a medical term, nor does it relate to medicine. Your emotional health is not your doctors responsibility. This girl was attacked and the doctor had no responsibility to treat her state of mind. That is for a therapist to deal with.

The doctor had a choice to give her the morning after pill - but it's his choice, he does not have to write a script for anything he does not want to & that is the bottom line. He wasn't wrong, he bears no consequence and was perfectly within his rights as a doctor.

You can disagree with his actions (as I do) but you can't say he didn't do his job.

Incorrect if you are willing to use the term "emotional health" - that is not a medical term, nor does it relate to medicine. Your emotional health is not your doctors responsibility. This girl was attacked and the doctor had no responsibility to treat her state of mind. That is for a therapist to deal with.

The doctor had a choice to give her the morning after pill - but it's his choice, he does not have to write a script for anything he does not want to & that is the bottom line. He wasn't wrong, he bears no consequence and was perfectly within his rights as a doctor.

You can disagree with his actions (as I do) but you can't say he didn't do his job.


Actually all health care profesionals are now trained that we are to treat the whole person, not just one part of them. That means that physical, emotional, and spirtual health have to be all well before a person is deamed healthy. If you don't believe me look up Orem, its a thery used by most nursing schools and hospitals.

Actually all health care profesionals are now trained that we are to treat the whole person, not just one part of them. That means that physical, emotional, and spirtual health have to be all well before a person is deamed healthy. If you don't believe me look up Orem, its a thery used by most nursing schools and hospitals.

But there was nothing unhealthy with the girl - she was raped, not given meningitus.

The hospital should be considered the one at fault here. If I enter an emergency room, should I then have to interview the administering doctor in order to ascertain his personal beliefs before he treats me. NO!

He has a right to practice medicine in spite of his belief system.

She has a right to the morning after pill should she chose. There should have been another option available to both the doctor and the patient.

The hospital should be liable for not providing it.

Vile: A Christian Scientist who is a medical doctor... oxymoron

Vile: A Christian Scientist who is a medical doctor... oxymoron

I understand, it was an extreme example.

Yes I would, 100%. If you do not like the policies of a local pharmacy go to another one or wait until a different pharmacist is one duty. Were I a pharmacist I would not dispense the morning after pill.
Were I the manager of such a pharmacy, I would fire you for not doing your job, as well as sending away business. If you don't want to do your job, then don't take the job in the first place.

That said, the doctor here was unethical, but did nothing illegal.

But there was nothing unhealthy with the girl - she was raped, not given meningitus.

First of all what you said was not only wrong but also ignorant. It's like "she was just raped" Like its a picnic or something. Honestly, I'd rather get a life threatening disease then get sexually assulted again. At least you can take meds for the disease, a rape or sexual assult stays in ur life forever, everyday you deal with it. So YES it is unhealthy thing. The girl needs help to get mentally healthy again, and that is supost to start in the ER.

Borg, you would never be my manager. I would own the pharmacy and would fire you if you gave me any lip. :lolhit:

First of all what you said was not only wrong but also ignorant. It's like "she was just raped" Like its a picnic or something. Honestly, I'd rather get a life threatening disease then get sexually assulted again. At least you can take meds for the disease, a rape or sexual assult stays in ur life forever, everyday you deal with it. So YES it is unhealthy thing. The girl needs help to get mentally healthy again, and that is supost to start in the ER.

I didn't say anything about the rape being insignificant, I simply stated a fact, it didn't give her a medical condition, it created an emotional condition, which is nothing an ER fixes.

Drew, this is an emotional topic as can be seen by student-nurse's response to what you posted. People are failing to differentiate between what might be the right thing to do and what is the legal thing to do.

People are failing to differentiate between what might be the right thing to do and what is the legal thing to do.

Actually, several people have made just that distinction.

I realize that, Vilepagan. You are among them. I was referring to people like Student-Nurse who seem unable to make that distinctionn.

I realize that, Vilepagan. You are among them. I was referring to people like Student-Nurse who seem unable to make that distinctionn.

Well lets see.. The right thing to do would be to have given that girl the pill, but legaly, he isn't required.

Close. Right in your mind, not in his. Legal in no one's mind.

Close. Right in your mind, not in his. Legal in no one's mind.

I believe someone posted something earlier that indicated what he did would have been illegal in New Jersey.

Another reason, besides the stench of the Meadowlands, that I don't live in New Jersey.

Well lets see.. The right thing to do would be to have given that girl the pill, but legaly, he isn't required.

I agree, although I would replace 'right' with 'decent'

His view of right & wrong prevented him from giving the pill. I don't agree with his view, but that doesn't make me right. I would say that the 'decent by most reasonable standards' thing to do, especially taking into consideration the trauma the girl had recieved would be to give her the pill. He was an ass not to prescribe it, especially when he knew the situation & that somebody else would give her it - he simply increased the hassle to her to obtain it for no good reason other than his own selfishness.

But, I do not agree that he should be fired, etc. He acted on his own principles, within his rights & people should respect that - he has rights just like the raped girl.

I agree, although I would replace 'right' with 'decent'

His view of right & wrong prevented him from giving the pill. I don't agree with his view, but that doesn't make me right. I would say that the 'decent by most reasonable standards' thing to do, especially taking into consideration the trauma the girl had recieved would be to give her the pill. He was an ass not to prescribe it, especially when he knew the situation & that somebody else would give her it - he simply increased the hassle to her to obtain it for no good reason other than his own selfishness.

But, I do not agree that he should be fired, etc. He acted on his own principles, within his rights & people should respect that - he has rights just like the raped girl.
I agree wholeheartedly, Drew.

I agree, although I would replace 'right' with 'decent'

His view of right & wrong prevented him from giving the pill. I don't agree with his view, but that doesn't make me right. I would say that the 'decent by most reasonable standards' thing to do, especially taking into consideration the trauma the girl had recieved would be to give her the pill. He was an ass not to prescribe it, especially when he knew the situation & that somebody else would give her it - he simply increased the hassle to her to obtain it for no good reason other than his own selfishness.

But, I do not agree that he should be fired, etc. He acted on his own principles, within his rights & people should respect that - he has rights just like the raped girl.

I don't know that he should be fired, but I seriously think he should look into a different practice. All hospitals have different standards, but in the future I only imagin this problem getting worse

No matter what standard a hospital has they cannot force a doctor to write a script - that would be highly unethical

No, but some hospitals require the dr. to find anouther dr. to write the script or preform the duty he or she refuses to do.

He has a right to practice medicine in spite of his belief system.

She has a right to the morning after pill should she chose. There should have been another option available to both the doctor and the patient.


Here is what's truly scary about this situation;

The patient had a serious problem that needed dealing with. The time factor was critical. The patient specifically requested the ONE drug that would immediately and absolutely effectively deal with and correct the problem that she wanted dealt with.

But instead, this quack doctor's (irrational, anti-health oriented) attitude was --"I don''t CARE about the health outcome that YOU as a patient want. My own personal sensibilities are offended by your use of the (perfectly legal and available) drug you have requested, thus I will REFUSE to give you that drug because of MY personal "beliefs".".

I don't know which is more disturbing; the fact that such an irrational person was given a doctor's license, or the fact that there are people in this country who would SUPPORT this doctor's bizarre "belief system" being something that informs and influences his health care decisions. Decisions that have a profound impact on the lives of his patients.

He has --IMO-- no business practicing medicine.

If he wants to go into some sort of fucking "faith based" heath care.........fine.

But leave the professions, such as medicine, that are based in SCIENCE to men OF science..............and not to superstitious quacks.

The time factor was critical.

The time factor was not critical. The patient had three days in which to take the drug.

The time factor was not critical. The patient had three days in which to take the drug.

Ok....point taken.

I did not mean to imply it was a matter of minutes. There was a finite limit on the time she had, however.

But I understand what you're saying.

Thankfully, she DID have the time to find a real doctor and get the drug she needed.

No, but some hospitals require the dr. to find anouther dr. to write the script or preform the duty he or she refuses to do.

I think that would be a good system.

The doctor did deny her care. She came to him with a specific complaint, and she requested a specific cure.

Guess what Vilepagan. There are times when I go to my doctor with a specific complaint and request a specific cure. Guess what again. Sometimes my doctor(s) say no.

But, what she came for wasn't a cure for a disease.

The time factor was critical.

The time factor was not critical. The patient had three days in which to take the drug.

The time is critical.. Now I'm not saying that its highly likely, but in the 45 mins it took her to find anouther doctor, plus the time that it took the original hospital to process her the sperm could have been working on getting to the egg. And I'll say it again, once the egg is fertilized the pill is no good and then she'd most likely get an abortion. So with ur belives i'd think you'd be for the emergency concreceptives since not having them would lead to increased abortions.

student-nurse,

Three days is three days. It isn't one day. It isn't ten hours. It isn't forty five minutes. It is three days. There were no critical time constraints.

It would have been nice if he had asceded to her request but he didn't have to. Doctors do not always give in to the wishes of patients. Just like parents, they sometimes say no.

student-nurse,

Three days is three days. It isn't one day. It isn't ten hours. It isn't forty five minutes. It is three days. There were no critical time constraints.


This may be true Frogger, I'm not up on the specifications of RU-486, but isn't it likely that the girl and her mother might have felt that there were critical time constraints? Do you think that time played a factor in the doctor's decision?

Do you think that time played a factor in the doctor's decision?
That's actually an excellent question, Vile.

No, I don't think time played a factor in the doctor's decision. I think he acted as he saw right.

The fact that the woman and her mother had ample time to get the pill somewhere else played a part in my decision to support the doctor in his choice.

All discussion aside, in the real world, somebody should have pulled that doctor out of the ER by his hair & given him a damn good kicking.

No, I don't think time played a factor in the doctor's decision. I think he acted as he saw right.

I think his vision is clouded by his feelings.


The fact that the woman and her mother had ample time to get the pill somewhere else played a part in my decision to support the doctor in his choice.

Well Froggrer, I have to say that time shouldn't be a factor in deciding the ethics of this case. In our society, we require people that hold certain professions to adhere to certain standards of conduct. We require policemen to uphold the law regardless if they disagree with the law, or have personal feelings about the law-breaker. We require doctors to treat people regardless of their race, sex, or medical condition. We should also require them to treat people regardless of their religious beliefs. If this doctor had told this girl that he wouldn't treat her at all based on the fact that she wanted the RU-486, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. His actions would have been blatantly unethical by witholding any treatment based on his personal beliefs. In a way, that's what he did here. He gave her partial treatment, and witheld that part he didn't agree with. IMO, that's obviously unethical.

I would also point out that some people here agree with what he did because they share his religious opposition to abortion. How would you feel if the doctor had witheld treatment for political reasons, or racial reasons? I think everyone here would find that appalling, yet because he did it for religious reasons, he's somehow looked at differently.

We require policemen to uphold the law regardless if they disagree with the law, or have personal feelings about the law-breaker. We require doctors to treat people regardless of their race, sex, or medical condition. We should also require them to treat people regardless of their religious beliefs.

Strong points.

Ok Frogger, I don't think you understand how this pill works. True you have UP TO three days to take it.. but if a "baby" is made on day one, and you take the pill on day three.. guess what? You're pregnant. I don't think it was an issue back in the days you went to school, but last year the most common thing I heard was "crap the condom broke last night" and all of the girls in my class know that its a race against time to get the morning after pill... bc it was a drug they covered in our nursing classes.

We require policemen to uphold the law regardless if they disagree with the law, or have personal feelings about the law-breaker.

A doctor is not a policeman.

This may be true Frogger, I'm not up on the specifications of RU-486, but isn't it likely that the girl and her mother might have felt that there were critical time constraints? Do you think that time played a factor in the doctor's decision?The morning after pill is not RU-486. It does not cause an abortion. It prevents conception if taken soon enough. So yes, time was a critical factor in this case as the girl could have conceived during the delay caused by the doctor's refusal.

The morning after pill is not RU-486. It does not cause an abortion. It prevents conception if taken soon enough. So yes, time was a critical factor in this case as the girl could have conceived during the delay caused by the doctor's refusal.

See, I told you I'm not really up on this subject. :D

A doctor is not a policeman.

Obviously not, but that doesn't change the fact that being a doctor might require you to treat people you'd rather not treat, or prescribe medications you'd rather not prescribe.

Ok Frogger, I don't think you understand how this pill works. True you have UP TO three days to take it.. but if a "baby" is made on day one, and you take the pill on day three.. guess what? You're pregnant. I don't think it was an issue back in the days you went to school, but last year the most common thing I heard was "crap the condom broke last night" and all of the girls in my class know that its a race against time to get the morning after pill... bc it was a drug they covered in our nursing classes.

The fact that the most common thing you heard was, "crap the condom broke last night" doesn't say much about the people you hang around with. Condoms very seldom break and for that to be the most common remark you heard last year means the girls you know must be screwing twenty three out of the twenty four hours in a day. Either that or you are making up the fact that that is the most common thing you heard last year.

He's right that condoms don't break that often - your friends must be banging like a farmyard door in the wind. No wonder they keep that pill in reserve.

The fact that the most common thing you heard was, "crap the condom broke last night" doesn't say much about the people you hang around with. Condoms very seldom break and for that to be the most common remark you heard last year means the girls you know must be screwing twenty three out of the twenty four hours in a day. Either that or you are making up the fact that that is the most common thing you heard last year.

First of all, it doesn't sound like you have ever used a condom bc they break all the time, esp if the guy is umm.. on the larger side. And you don't have to be a whore to have sex, many of the girls I went to school with were either adults or had children and were in serious relationships. Now if they didn't use condoms thats when I'd question their character. Also, with 35 girls in one locker room, you here a lot of things, and having sex at night isn't 24 hours a day.

He's right that condoms don't break that often - your friends must be banging like a farmyard door in the wind. No wonder they keep that pill in reserve.

lol Drew.. thats a new one.

First of all, it doesn't sound like you have ever used a condom bc they break all the time, esp if the guy is umm.. on the larger side. And you don't have to be a whore to have sex, many of the girls I went to school with were either adults or had children and were in serious relationships. Now if they didn't use condoms thats when I'd question their character. Also, with 35 girls in one locker room, you here a lot of things, and having sex at night isn't 24 hours a day.

You'll have to pardon me if I call bullshit on this one. Condoms do not break all the time. "Data on condom breakage and slippage from a nationally representative survey show that the average condom breakage rate experienced by 20-39-year-old men who have used a condom in the preceding six months was 2.7%, and that 1.9% of all condoms used during that time broke."

Most condom breakage occurs because the people are too stupid to know how to use them. According to the experts condoms break because idiots open the package with their teeth or a sharp object, pull them on like a sock instead of rolling them on, or reuse them. Condom slippage is ususally caused because men are underendowed.

Either you and your friends are screwing a bunch of dumb hillbillies or men mentioned in the song by Gillete, "Don't Want No Short Dick Man".

I find it laughable that some eighteen year old snippet is telling me I don't know how to use a condom. I was screwing airheads like you before you were born and never had a condom break.

I was screwing airheads like you before you were born and never had a condom break.

Real nice reply there Frogger. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you are endowed like a Chinese man and thats why none broke.

Anyways - back then didn't they use goats intenstines or something like that, it was before the invention of latex right?

They don't break that often, but they do break sometimes.

My post was in response to her's. If student-nurse doesn't want to be considered an airhead perhaps she should stop posting inanities like, maybe you didn't use condoms. I have very little patience with people who post dumb stuff and student-nurse seems to post more dumb stuff than most.

Actually we used sheep intestines back then. They were much more soft than goat's intestine. I used to get mine directly from Giacomo Cassanova. We were friends when we were both teenagers.

I'm gonna have to side with you on that one, Frogger....

Student Nurse,

He makes a good point; condoms don't break very often at all, and if they do, it's usually before your orgasm. Couple that with using one that’s spermicidally lubricated, and your chance of pregnancy is nil. "The condom broke" excuse is beyond lame. It's what every pregnant teenager tells their parents and friends when they were fucking without one.

First of all, it doesn't sound like you have ever used a condom bc they break all the time, esp if the guy is umm.. on the larger side. And you don't have to be a whore to have sex, many of the girls I went to school with were either adults or had children and were in serious relationships. Now if they didn't use condoms thats when I'd question their character. Also, with 35 girls in one locker room, you here a lot of things, and having sex at night isn't 24 hours a day.
If you use the condom correctly, with proper lubrication, they have an extremely high success rate. They simply don't break unless you're using one wrong.

Ok this is to both frogger and Praetorian.. when I was engaged the condom broke at least 3 times a month and it was BEFORE orgasm, but there's still pre-cum you gotta worry about. Sperm is in all cum, not just the large amounts lol. And I really doubt you were screwing girls like me, since I was a virgin up untill about 6 months ago! Plus I wouldn't call a girl that started nursing school at 16 years old an airhead, seeing how some people in their 20's can't even take it.

If the condom broke three times a month you were either screwing one hundred fifty times a month on average or you were engaged to someone who simply didn't know how to get a condom out of the package and put it on his penis.

Or you're purchasing "no-name-brand" condoms made by the lowest bidder. Thirty years ago we handed out condoms gratis to anyone that wanted them, and quite honestly, I didn't hear of them breaking. There was a large box of them at the signout desk for soldiers going out on nightly or weekend passes. One didn't even have to ask for them, just reach into the box & grab as many as they wanted. I spent all of 1975 as a U.S. Army medic stationed in South Korea. We treated hundereds of cases of STD's (back then we called them VD) monthly, primarily for knuckleheads refusing to use them.

If you are going to use condoms that say Happy Birthday and danger, choking hazard for young children of course they are going to break. Use real condoms rather than toy balloons.

Wow! Look at all those broken condoms.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20060817/i/r462764080.jpg?

Ok this is to both frogger and Praetorian.. when I was engaged the condom broke at least 3 times a month and it was BEFORE orgasm, but there's still pre-cum you gotta worry about. Sperm is in all cum, not just the large amounts lol. And I really doubt you were screwing girls like me, since I was a virgin up untill about 6 months ago! Plus I wouldn't call a girl that started nursing school at 16 years old an airhead, seeing how some people in their 20's can't even take it.
What brand of condoms were you using, LifeStyles?!

Also, I'm enjoying your attempt to prove your credentials in sex by listing that you're going to nursing school. Whoopie! Doesn't mean your guy knows the difference between a condom and a paper bag.

Ok this is to both frogger and Praetorian.. when I was engaged the condom broke at least 3 times a month and it was BEFORE orgasm, but there's still pre-cum you gotta worry about. Sperm is in all cum, not just the large amounts lol. And I really doubt you were screwing girls like me, since I was a virgin up untill about 6 months ago! Plus I wouldn't call a girl that started nursing school at 16 years old an airhead, seeing how some people in their 20's can't even take it.

I'm sorry, but using your age and current status as a nursing student to defend the idiocy of something you've said is ... stupid. Just because you're able to study and do well on exams does not mean you know all there is to know when it comes to sex, reproduction, and methods of safe sex.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that condoms breaking during sex is a common occurence. I've been having sex for a little over four years and I can count on one hand the number of times a condom has broken during vaginal sex. And I use condoms religiously. I agree with the other posters who have said that breakage is due to incorrect use.

danger, choking hazard for young children
:lolhit:

I've had a condom break twice in my life. Once there was a loud popping sound, it was obvious what happened. The other time it became dry after a long while and had no lube so it eventually broke. It was still very noticeable when it happened.

What brand of condoms were you using, LifeStyles?!

Also, I'm enjoying your attempt to prove your credentials in sex by listing that you're going to nursing school. Whoopie! Doesn't mean your guy knows the difference between a condom and a paper bag.

Only once, it was so small it broke as soon as he put it on.. The rest of the time we used trojans, and they were always breaking. Then again, once we upgraded to those magnem ones they stoped breaking.. And as experienced as he was sexually i'd hope he knew the difference between the two..lol.. although from you saying that it almost saids like u know him! lol.. he was a real idiot, which would be why he's my ex.

I've had a condom break twice in my life. Once there was a loud popping sound,

You probably blew it up too big.:lolhit:

You know Frogger, those do make the best balloons! When I was younger we use to use them as water balloons to throw at guys.