There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

afraid_of_zombies ,

www.glensfallshospital.org/about/…/contact-us

random65837 ,

I feel for her, but this feels shady as hell. Never mentions the drug, which could be because if people knew, they’d look into it and possibly side against her. Then add she’s a TikTok’r and “content creator” which means all these clicks into her are making her a lot of money.

FlowVoid ,

My guess is that the drug is valproate. It’s used for headaches as well as epilepsy, though obviously other drugs can be used instead.

The problem with valproate is that it is causes birth defects in two thirds (!!) of pregnancies, including spina bifida in 10% of pregnancies.

The World Health Organization and the European Medicine Agency have issued statements/regulations against prescribing it to any women of childbearing potential. Plenty of American docs take a similar approach, regardless of religious beliefs. Just to be crystal clear, neither the WHO nor the EMA pay attention to Dobbs, the SCOTUS, or the GOP.

30mag ,

It has been over a year since the appointment in question took place.

jezebel.com/woman-with-severe-chronic-pain-was-de…

FlowVoid ,

This sort of thing has been common practice since long before Dobbs. And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects, especially if there is an alternative prescription that is not known to be associated with birth defects. And there almost always is an alternative.

t_jpeg ,

Yup. Common practive with anti-epileptics - some have worse implications for babies than others which is why those said others are used first.

FlowVoid ,

I just noticed this in the article:

Where are we drawing the line here? Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test

Nearly all hospitals have long required pregnancy tests for some things, like getting a CT scan (which involves radiation exposure). And if the test is positive, the doctor is supposed to consider alternatives.

t_jpeg ,

Exactly. It’s not a “where do we draw the line” thing here, the line is already drawn as you allude to. It’s not just CT scans as well, some actual medications need pregnancy tests or at least active contraception use. Roaccutane, methotrexate and other DMARDs etc - everything in medicine is a risk vs reward thing and I’m sure many patient would prefer not to be on a drug that messes up their fetus whether they’re planning to keep it or not in the case they get pregnant. You’d rather just avoid the risk of that situation occuring altogether.

LavaPlanet ,

You cut the quote off, that’s just part of what was said. That quote in full doesn’t just talk about a pregnancy test, but that on top of and as well as sterilisation, before being allowed to take a necessary drug.

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

What birth defects would there be in this case?

FlowVoid ,

I don’t know, because the medication in question hasn’t been identified.

But in general, if a medication causes any birth defects (or, more often, miscarriages) in lab animals then it won’t be used at the equivalent dose in pregnant patients. It would be unethical to try to find out what it does to a human fetus.

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

So the woman was pregnant?

FlowVoid , (edited )

I don’t think so. But if a med is not to be used in pregnant patients, then it’s only used as a last resort for patients who could become pregnant while taking it.

Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it’s standard CYA for health care providers.

In the case of valproate, there are even European regulations against using it in women during childbearing years.

uranibaba ,

From the text in the original post, I assume she was not.

“determined to protect a hypothetical fetus"

FlowVoid ,

She’s not pregnant, but doctors try to avoid long-term prescription of teratogenic drugs to patients who might become pregnant while taking them.

LavaPlanet ,

Which is super not ok. You get that, right?

t_jpeg ,

It is okay if there is a non teratogenic alternative that treats the targeted disease. Why risk teratogenicity when you can altogether avoid it?

LavaPlanet ,

You are assuming a few things, you’re assuming she hasn’t tried anything else and jumped straight to the deep end. And you’re assuming that it’s ok to say to one group of people they’re incapable of mitigating risks for themselves, and need that to be decided for them. Taking away their autonomy entirely. She’s been to many doctors. She’s tried everything already. This causes people to feel suicidal because of the levels of pain on a frequent basis. And she’s told she just has to live with the pain, her pain is inconsequential in comparison to an imaginary non existent person.

FlowVoid ,

No, I don’t get that. If a drug might result in birth defects, it should only be used as a last resort. And that’s not just me or some random NY docs saying it, it’s the WHOand European Medicines Agency

LavaPlanet ,

Do you see the problematic thinking in that line of thinking, though? You are saying a woman can’t be trusted to use a medication if it might cause a birth defect. She can’t be trusted not to fall pregnant, she can’t be trusted to think for herself. She can’t be trusted to keep up with birth control. She can’t be trusted when she says she doesn’t want kids ever. What the first consideration is for, is the *possible child, foremost. Not the person, the actual patient. And you’re quoting American healthcare?

FlowVoid , (edited )

I’m quoting the World Health Organization and a European agency, neither are American health care.

This is a universal approach taken by health care in the US, EU, and across the world. Doctors in general are pragmatists, and only concerned with outcomes. Which means acknowledging that no matter how often patients say “Trust me”, they know a certain number will have a bad outcome. The doctor’s job is to reduce that number.

It’s the same reason why doctors increasingly urge their patients to not keep firearms at home. Even when the patient says they can be trusted with a firearm. It’s not a matter of trust, it’s a matter of statistics.

LavaPlanet ,

Firearms and medication aren’t even slightly in the same ballpark. What you are arguing for is that all women of child baring age should never be allowed to mitigate their own risks. And the *potential possible for a fetus, has more consideration that the actual person. If you want to talk firearms. Firearms aren’t banned outright. This drug has been completely and utterly denied to a person because of the *potential to crate another human. So if you compare that to firearms, that’s like saying only women can’t be trusted with firearms, even if they have safe measures to keep them at home. Like a gun safe. I live in Australia, we have guns here, I can go and buy a gun, and there’s safety measures I have to abide by. That’s not what’s happening here. That’s not what you’re arguing. It’s problematic to assume that one gender is incapable of mitigating risks, at all. She can prevent herself getting pregnant while on the drug and says she’s child free, never wants kids. The potential for that to fail is still held in higher regard than the actual harm be caused an actual person, not an imaginary person that doesn’t exist (if you want to call a cluster of cells a person, spoiler it’s not). This would be like you going to the doctors and the doctor won’t give you medication to relieve agonising pain to the extent it commonly causes suicidality, and the doctor says, no you just have to suffer in this pain when nothing else is helping, because you might cause a pregnancy in a woman, and you tell he doctor you promise to use protection and that you’re gay and don’t even sleep with women, and he still doesn’t care, because the potential for damage to someone who doesn’t even exist is more important than you and your actual lived existence. There is a medical rule that has caused people who it applies to harm, and those people are speaking out. You aren’t able to imagine or consider their situation. This is an issue in the USA. So using medical advice from other sources doesn’t really apply. This is happening because of the medical issues in that region specifically, the banning of essential health care for women, which is having huge roll on effects.

FlowVoid , (edited )

Doctors are expected to mitigate risks, too. Valproate-induced spina bifida is a real problem, and doctors share a responsibility to prevent it when it won’t harm their patients. They share this responsibility because they previously tried making patients entirely responsible for mitigating their risk, and that approach has failed.

Nobody said the woman in the article “has to suffer”. They didn’t refuse to give her any medicine, they refused to give her a particular medicine. There are plenty of alternatives, and in fact the doctor in this article wrote the woman a prescription for a different medicine. But of course, some people only want what they can’t have.

Despite what patients often think, doctors are not drug dispensaries. It’s not their job - and never has been - to give patients the latest drug they read about online, or the drug that worked for their friend, or the drug that someone said “ask your doctor” about. If there is a less risky drug that can treat the patient, they will prescribe that instead of what the patient wants.

To take another example, vancomycin is an antibiotic of last resort. Bacteria have not yet developed widespread resistance to it, so it is reserved for patients who have antibiotic-resistant infections, like MRSA. If it is used too much, theoretically bacteria can finally develop resistance to it. And theoretically, people in the future with MRSA may suffer.

Next time you get antibiotics, try telling your doctor “No, I want a vancomycin prescription”. You will be disappointed. They are going to give you what they think will get the job done without incurring unnecessary risks, for you or other people.

vivadanang ,

NOT IN THE ARTICLE. not sure what bullshit this thread’s asserting

vivadanang ,

that is not the case here at all. READ THE GODDAMN ARTICLE. SHE WASN’T EVEN PREGNANT.

SaltySalamander ,
@SaltySalamander@kbin.social avatar

But she could become pregnant while taking the medication, which would likely lead to birth defects. Why are you struggling to understand this so badly?

vivadanang ,

even though she said she’d abort if she did, and was not attempting to get pregnant, and may have been on birth control?

It’s not a danger to the baby if you’re already committed NOT TO HAVE A KID. what part of this are YOU struggling with so badly?

killeronthecorner ,
@killeronthecorner@lemmy.world avatar

Do you think we should ban women from extreme sports once they reach child bearing age? After all, it’ll put a hypothetical foetus at risk, right?

This is such a faulty line of reasoning as to be laughable. The doctor didn’t offer contraception or an alternative medicine as the WHO gives guidance on, instead he made inappropriate enquiries about her sex life and the quality of her partner.

Pragmatism is giving a patient all the information they need to make a decision, not gatekeeping access to meds because you can’t view women as anything other than a foetus factory.

vivadanang ,

And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects

I’d love to see some kind of citation or a medical professional’s opinion. this seems like bullshit but I’m willing to read supporting evidence if you have any.

FlowVoid , (edited )

Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:

valproate should be avoided, if possible, in women of childbearing potential because of teratogenicity

See also:

In 2018, the European Medicines Agency introduced new restrictions on the use of valproate in girls and women of childbearing potential to avoid exposure during pregnancy

And yes, valproate is also used to treat cluster headaches, so it could easily be the drug that the woman in the article can’t obtain.

vivadanang ,

so if anything can go wrong it shouldn’t be prescribed?

Tell that to the millions of men who have high blood pressure but pop viagra all the time. Women get a double standard of treatment and it’s bullshit. This woman didn’t want children and affirmed she would seek an abortion if she became pregnant despite birth control. Docs still put her through this garbage.

FlowVoid ,

Viagra is pretty safe, as drugs go. Are you thinking of Vioxx? That stuff was taken off the market.

vivadanang ,

taking viagra with a heart condition is dangerous. but these dr’s apply two sets of rules, one for potential breeding stock and one for the rest of humanity. people are not breeding cattle, these docs need to stay in their fucking lanes and practice medicine, stop injecting their religious opinions onto patients healthcare.

FlowVoid ,

Most people who take Viagra have hypertension, because hypertension is the main cause of ED. That doesn’t mean Viagra is dangerous, but you shouldn’t combine it with certain other drugs.

There is a world of difference between valproate and Viagra. Valproate causes birth defects and cognitive delay in 30-50% of pregnancies, which is astonishingly high. If Viagra caused permanent harm to even 5% of users, it would already be off the market.

vivadanang ,

so patients should be allowed to use drugs even if there are risks involved.

huh, it’s almost like you’re asserting that people should have agency. like the woman in the article, except her docs decided for her that even though she wasn’t going to have a baby either way, so no risk to pregnancy, they wouldn’t put her on that med because…? it’s disgusting.

FlowVoid , (edited )

If you go to a doctor and demand a course of antibiotics for a viral infection, they have been trained to refuse. Because antibiotics do not treat viruses.

For that matter, if you actually do have a simple bacterial infection and immediately demand a last-resort antibiotic like vancomycin, doctors have been trained to refuse. Vancomycin may work on you, but using it may create bacterial resistant strains that will put others at risk. Resistance is especially a threat if you don’t complete your course of antibiotics.

So doctors will offer you a different antibiotic instead, with less risk of creating a resistant strain. Even if you promise to complete your antibiotics, “you get what you get so don’t get upset”.

People have agency, but so do doctors. Doctors are not supposed to be dispensaries who simply give patients whatever they ask for. Doctors have the right to refuse to provide a prescription that is not in keeping with the standard of care, and offer a different prescription instead. You have the right to find a different doctor, or not see a doctor at all.

Quereller ,

High blood pressure. Viagra can lower your blood pressure. If you’re taking medication to treat high blood pressure, taking Viagra could cause your blood pressure to drop even further. In some cases, this could make you feel dizzy or lightheaded or cause you to faint. And if you have high blood pressure that’s not controlled (measuring higher than 170/110 mmHg), your heart may not be healthy enough for sex. If you have high blood pressure, talk with your doctor about whether Viagra is right for you. If you’re able to take Viagra, your doctor will usually prescribe a dosage for you that’s lower than the typical dosage.

Oh and this one: Potential for cardiac risk with sexual activity in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease; therefore, treatment for erectile dysfunction generally should not be instituted in men for whom sexual activity is inadvisable because of their underlying cardiovascular status.

random65837 ,

So you weren’t born during the Accutane days huh? There’s a reason it’s almost impossible to get prescribed that shit. My friend is blind in one eye because of a drug her mother took BEFORE she was pregnant with her kid… ie “child bearing years”. No doc want to sign the line on many drugs. You can sign all the waivers you want, people still sue and win, even when it’s not justified. You can’t force docs to do things they’re uncomfortable with, remember that oath they take to do no harm? Sometimes that backfires, but it’s something that needs to remain intact for everybodys protection.

Look into Thalomid while you’re at it! I took Vioxx, worked awesome, glad I’m not dead, that shit killed tens of thousands and something like 150k had heart attacks from it.

vivadanang ,

if the patient isn’t pregnant, tests not pregnant, and says they won’t get pregnant, and if they happen to get pregnant, abort the fetus, what the fuck is your problem? this woman asserted all this to the medical ‘professional’ and was still treated like a child who needed someone else’s permission to receive the treatment she needed.

Ever had a migraine?

Comparing it to Thalidomide? FUCK YOU. The drug company knew it had multiple issues with pregnancy and still put it out. Docs warned each other. This is not the same thing, but you’re trying to scare people into thinking there’s an equivalence. www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415

random65837 ,

if the patient isn’t pregnant, tests not pregnant, and says they won’t get pregnant, and if they happen to get pregnant, abort the fetus, what the fuck is your problem? this woman asserted all this to the medical ‘professional’ and was still treated like a child who needed someone else’s permission to receive the treatment she needed

Because people say that, change their minds, and then sue and win after the fact. That’s why. If we weren’t in a lawsuit happy society, and if waivers and legal agreements weren’t ignored by judges, doctors wouldn’t have to be petrified to give shit to people. PEOPLE act like children, and that’s we get treated that way not. She’s proving that with this lawsuit.

Ever had a migraine?

Ya, and they’re fucking terrible, which is why I said I feel for her, but that changes nothing. I couldn’t get on TRT because my levels were “in range” while I was in the shitter over it, Docs hate giving it, Insurance tries to not prescribe it in levels that actually fix anything, so I bypassed them, went to a cash pay clinic and got what I wanted. I didn’t sue the fucking doctor, we live in a anti man society and they’ll get shit on by their practice for doing their job.

Comparing it to Thalidomide? FUCK YOU. The drug company knew it had multiple issues with pregnancy and still put it out. Docs warned each other. This is not the same thing, but you’re trying to scare people into thinking there’s an equivalence. www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415

I’m very aware of it’s history, and it was fucking people up LONG before it got pulled wasn’t it?

SCB ,

we live in a anti man society

Lol imagine writing this

random65837 ,

“LOL”, idiot. Youre clearly not in the States obviously.

SCB ,

I am, indeed, in the US.

random65837 ,

Then dont insult yourself by pretended the war against “toxic masculitiy” hasn’t been a very real thing for many years. I doubt you dug yourself a hole deep enough to avoid that.

SCB ,

Yeah fuck toxic masculinity. That has nothing to do with being a man. Toxic masculinity isn’t manhood, it’s the cultural distortion caused by generations of males trying to wear the costume of being a man, while being fragile themselves.

random65837 ,

Except the actual definition and the working definition dont line up. Wish I could ignore real life the way you do.

vivadanang ,

ah it’s always that way huh? dirty patients lying to their docs?

get fucked.

hopefully you get a migraine this weekend to remind you to be humane to others.

random65837 ,

Quote me saying “dirty patients lying to their docs”

I said people change thier minds. Can’t keep going without putting words in my mouth huh? Thats telling.

My migraines were addressed. I dont get them anymore. Luckily I had docs that worked at finding the issues and didn’t prescribed me drugs they weren’t comofortable with.

At no point was I not “humane”, nice theatrics though! People like you are the reason docs are like that. Anything you dont like you throw a tantrum like a child, and then relynon virtue signaling others to cry for you with mob mentality. Thanks for proving my point.

Quexotic ,

I agree with the points made in this article, but I don’t think they did due diligence in reporting on what doctors or hospitals blacklisted her and why. I’d like to know the reasoning behind why she was denied treatment everywhere locally. I suspect that there’s an interesting story there.

vivadanang ,

Yeah there’s an interesting story, the doctors lied about her to other doctors:

According to Rule, after she shared audio recordings of her interactions with the neurologist on TikTok, an employee at the hospital contacted another hospital in the area, alleging that Rule livestreamed her appointments. This led to Rule’s removal from the second hospital, Malta Medical (also under Albany Medical Health Partners), in the middle of treatment for her cluster headaches. Rule denies livestreaming.

Quexotic ,

Right, and it’s great that we hear her side of the story as it truly is an injustice. I also noticed that the writer did say that they wouldn’t comment on ongoing litigation, but still, what about all the other hospitals that blacklisted her, right?

Also, not a smart move on her part publicizing that stuff before the trial, but that’s neither here nor there I suppose.

Anyway, I hope she wins the shit out of that lawsuit!

vivadanang ,

I can’t fathom how women deal with this bullshit day in and day out. Yeah, hopefully she wins enough to give pause to the other assholes who want to tell people what they can and can’t do with their bodies.

Quexotic ,

Me either. My wife, for example, was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, IMO, a total cop-out… and now they see in imaging that the pain is likely from arthritis.

Fuckin frustrating.

30mag ,

This is a messy story. It has been covered by other publications. Other publications have included additional details. I suspect that what happened may not be so clearly black and white as the story presented by Jezebel.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/10/13/roe-abortions-people-denied-medications-because-of-hypothetical-pregnancies/8194046001/ (archive link because article is paywalled)

timesunion.com/…/New-York-woman-claims-she-was-de…

Quexotic ,

Aww, thanks for the links! That’s really nice of you!

30mag ,

You’re welcome.

AllNewTypeFace ,
@AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space avatar

Next week: drinking age for women raised to 50, just in case.

PsychedSy ,

Right? What sort of bullshit is this. At least booze has no real gatekeepers.

Perhapsjustsniffit ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    TinfoilBeanieTech ,

    I’m worried Canada is going to build a wall

    Shinhoshi ,
    @Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Nah, the kind of people that would build it wouldn’t mind more conservatives to solidify their power

    BugleFingers ,

    As someone who’s about to go to the hospital, plz send help…and bugles

    Chunk ,

    Yes, crazy town for sure, but from the headline alone it seems like this is an open and shut case of malpractice.

    IANAL so wtf do I know

    KneeTitts ,
    @KneeTitts@lemmy.world avatar

    Also Canadian here, our insane conservatives would do the exact same thing if we give them power… I suspect we are soon to find out

    assassin_aragorn ,

    Do your damnedest to keep them away. I’ve come to realize that the core of modern conservativism bypasses nationalities. All Western conservative leaders have the same goals.

    (Conservative here meaning socially conservative largely. Fascists, not all capitalists necessarily)

    figaro ,

    I’m currently watching a handmaid’s tale. I know it’s fictional but my love for Canada has increased while watching the show.

    Ashe ,

    I visited last month and it made me realize just how bad it’s gotten. I had it in my head that I was in a reasonably safe area of the US, but it’s getting worse. I may have to actually consider the asylum for trans people if it becomes a reality :~;

    clark ,
    @clark@midwest.social avatar

    This kind of shit makes me sad every time I see it. Unbelievable the lengths some women have to go to get the medication they need. I am so tired of these types of doctors.

    icedterminal ,

    Not just medication, but just choices regarding their bodies in general. It’s appalling. A friend of mine doesn’t want kids at all. She has been denied twice to have an elective hysterectomy. The doctors told her they won’t in case she decides to have kids.

    Kanzar ,

    She can always ask for a bilateral salpingectomy. A lot of CF women have successfully had that done as IVF is still possible. If, however, she has endometriosis which is why she actually wants the hysterectomy done, then that’s a fair bit harder. I’m unsure if there’s a CF community on Lemmy, but the one on the other site had a lot of resources on how to talk with medical practitioners to get referred to someone who would do the treatment.

    icedterminal ,

    Thanks. I’ll relay this along to her.

    whatwhatwutyut ,

    Yep, the reddit community had (and still has, afaik) a community gathered list of providers in each state where community members had had luck getting sterilized.

    I found my OBGYN through this list and actually have my hysterectomy a week from today. Minimal convincing of the doctor necessary - just explained why I wanted it (terrible, heavy periods with heavy cramps AND I never want kids) and she essentially said “your body, your choice” and got me scheduled. Had to wait a month due to insurance requiring a wait period but no other issues.

    Quereller ,

    The FDA mandates that such drugs are only dispensed to patient with evidence of pregnancy testing and contraception use. (Which is IMHO common sense to require.)

    I did not find information if the woman did a pregnancy test and used a reliable contraceptive.

    RememberTheApollo_ ,

    So your assumption is that she lied or tried to pull one over on the Dr for pain meds?

    Quereller ,

    No, that not! The drug she wants is not a pain killer.

    Maybe, she didn’t want to make a pregnancy test and did not want to use the pill or spiral, etc. The doctors can only give her the drug if these conditions are met (she can not get pregnant at the moment). Because it is clearly stated on the packaging label and accompanying documentation. If they would give it anyway they would be personally liable (and responsible) for a possible stillbirth or handicapped child.

    This is only speculation on my part. Maybe it is all totally different.

    weed_scientist ,

    It says right in the video in the article that she uses contraception and would have an abortion if it failed. I’m sure she would’ve taken a pregnancy test, but that doctor wasn’t having it. What more do you need to feel like this woman should be “allowed” to receive life-saving medication? She was literally passing out from pain. Then was prescribed a med that dangerously drops her already low blood pressure.

    Quereller ,

    I can’t, for technical reasons, watch the TikTok video If she uses contraception and no contraindications are present she should by all means receive an effective treatment.

    roboticide ,

    Which is why she’s suing and will hopefully take them to the cleaners.

    Quereller ,

    It would be interesting to hear of the final ruling.

    I still have the hunch that is more like: according to the treatment guidelines you are supposed to try out this two other drugs first because they have less side effects and are safer.

    Or maybe the MDs in this hospital are all bigoted lunatics. I don’t know.

    Bitchfit ,

    I can’t, for technical reasons, watch the video, either, but all the information above is literally written down in the article.

    I’m curious why you automatically assume she’s lying and not the hospital?

    Quereller , (edited )

    Propably I have some normalicy bias. I actually don’t think she is lying. She might not believe the reasons the MDs do not want to prescribe her the drug at the moment.

    For example the text says things like this: He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.” That sound bad but if you look at the product label:

    Patient Information

    Important questions

    …

    Are you pregnant? Do you think you might be pregnant? Are you trying to become pregnant? Are you sexually active and not using birth control? Are you breast feeding?

    …

    Label text

    Edit: this article gives a bit more info. Inclusive a link to the audio recording (which is still can not access thanks to TikTok). The infos provided are in favor of the patient.

    30mag ,

    What more do you need to feel like this woman should be “allowed” to receive life-saving medication?

    She was prescribed medication. Did they leave that out of the article?

    Rule asks whether the drug would be a very effective treatment if she were a post-menopausal woman. The doctor says, “Yes, it would be.” In a longer version of the recording, obtained by the Times Union, it’s not clear whether the doctor is trying to discourage Rule from ever getting an abortion, or is awkwardly trying to communicate the risks of the medication. Rule said the doctor prescribed a different medication that has other negative side effects.

    timesunion.com/…/New-York-woman-claims-she-was-de…

    weed_scientist ,

    Yes, I mentioned that in the last sentence of my comment. She said in the video that her blood pressure dropping to a lethal level is very possible due to pre-existing issues.

    30mag ,

    Is that in the part 2 video?

    snausagesinablanket ,
    @snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world avatar

    Glens falls hospital is a toilet with entire floors that are abandoned. They don’t even have fans for the women in the birthing center because “people keep stealing them” according to the staff so all this horribly hot summer, women that are about to have or just had a baby have to sit in a pool of sweat with no moving air in their rooms. It cost several thousand a day to stay there, but they can’t provide $20 desk fans.

    winterayars ,

    Damn, it really sounded like you were describing the USSR for a second but then you said “It cost several thousand a day to stay there…”

    ThatFembyWho ,

    Wouldn’t contraceptives be an even better protection?

    You can’t have birth defects if you’re never conceived taps head

    andy_wijaya_med ,
    @andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world avatar

    What is the medicine in question? Any other MD (or better, neurologist) here? As far as I know, most of the standard treatment for cluster headaches are safe for pregnant women…

    crazyminner ,
    @crazyminner@sh.itjust.works avatar

    She’s not pregnant though so it wouldn’t matter.

    alcasa ,

    Commonly they dont recommend embryotoxic medication in woman of childbearing age, as unecpected pregnancies happen and the chance for severe birth defects increase. Sometimes these can only be detected late into a pregnancy, so if the person might want to keep a pregnancy it would be not to take it.

    KeenFlame ,

    But sir we have a lynch party here we can’t just use normal reasoning… that’s boring for one and also snowballing hatred is our forte

    Finite ,

    Sure, but do not recommend is different than will not give.

    sweeny ,

    That should be the women’s choice to make though. She doesn’t want a baby, if she has an unexpected pregnancy she will abort, so she doesn’t need to take all that into account. She should get her treatment and a prior warning about pregnancy issues that could occur

    Abnorc ,

    If a doctor spells out a risk to a patient and then still gives something that ends up causing harm, it is really a bit of a grey area. I don’t think that the doctor is entirely free of guilt in general. That being said, denying a medication without offering a proper substitute on this basis seems egregious. One can, under normal circumstances, control if they get pregnant or not.

    tryptaminev ,

    Not in this case though. Worst thing the doctor could ask for a confirmation that ge informed the patient about the associated risks. I’d imagine a conversation like this:

    “I inform you that this medication can cause severe birth defects in any baby in case you are pregnant. If you are pregnant you should not take this medication”

    “I am not pregnant and do not plan to get pregnant. If i should be pregnant without my knowledge i’ll not keep the baby.”

    “Given the strong risk associated with possible birth defects from this medication, could you please sign here, that i informed you about the risk?”

    Kafkacious ,

    The moral grey area here is the person that ends up with birth defects I think. Not sure I agree with the policy, but remove it with a large enough population you will end up with some women ignoring advice and carrying to term.

    Nalivai ,

    There is no person and would never be a person. In some other case, where the pregnancy is on the table, sure, maybe then we can talk about it. But this precrime bullshit is nothing more than just another strive to remove agency from women.

    abraxas ,

    There is no person and would never be a person

    Based on the full context, I’m actually on the woman’s side here. Even if I supported expanding fetal rights (I don’t), those rights should never start before conception.

    But this statement is not something we can know. I’ve known plenty of people who “aren’t pregnant and wouldn’t keep a baby if I were” that are now happy parents of that baby they wouldn’t keep. I’ve also known people who wanted children and then flipped a 180 and opted for abortion.

    FlowVoid , (edited )

    That’s not how it would play out in a malpractice case.

    Lawyer: You recommended my client take a medication that causes birth defects, when you could have recommended a medication that doesn’t cause birth defects. Because of that, her child has birth defects.

    Doctor: Yes, but she said she didn’t want children.

    Lawyer: Have you ever heard a woman say she didn’t want children, who later went on to have a child?

    Doctor: Yes, it happens sometimes.

    Lawyer: So birth defects are a foreseeable result of the medication you recommended, even in women who say they don’t want children?

    Doctor: …

    sweeny ,

    Nice imaginary conversation, I’m sure you’re a totally qualified doctor and lawyer… just have the patient sign a liability waiver dude

    FlowVoid ,

    Liability waivers don’t protect doctors against malpractice claims.

    sweeny ,

    Yes they do. In new york (where this took place), and most places, doctors are protected by liability waivers if the patient has informed consent. Read this for more information if you want an actual informed opinion on this

    sobolaw.com/…/signing-a-waiver-before-surgery-can…

    FlowVoid , (edited )

    Your link literally explains how to sue a doctor for malpractice after signing a liability waiver.

    No waiver can claim that patients cannot sue their doctors for gross incompetence.

    In most cases, this will involve collecting medical files, seeing copies of the waiver(s) signed by the patient, and proving medical malpractice or negligence by showing that:

    The doctor in question deviated from an acceptable standard of care

    The injuries came from that deviation

    The damages came from those injuries

    Which is straightforward in this case. The standard of care is not to give valproate to women of childbearing age except as a last resort, and valproate is known to have a very high risk of birth defects.

    sweeny ,

    This wouldn’t be gross incompetence, it is a standard treatment that comes with pregnancy risks that the patient can choose to take knowing that they aren’t going to give birth. All of those quotes youve selectively pulled are in reference to unexpected injury that isn’t outlined in the waiver, so I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t apply in this case. Neither of us are lawyers though, I wonder if any lawyer fed heads could chime in

    FlowVoid ,

    The doctor prescribed a different medication for her. And doctors, not patients, ultimately get to decide which drug they prescribe.

    I don’t think her case is going anywhere. She is suing pro se, which means she couldn’t find or doesn’t want a lawyer to take her case.

    assassin_aragorn ,

    Easy solution, prescribe birth control treatment in tandem. Require insurance to pay.

    It’s pretty simple really. If someone is taking a medication that creates problems if they become pregnant, and they don’t want to become pregnant, give them treatment to prevent them from becoming pregnant!

    The_v ,

    Not a Dr. but enjoy a good scientific paper.

    Intranasal dihydroergotamine is a category X. Aka it causes fetal damage.

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971427/

    Also for those that don’t know a cluster headache is a migraine on steroids. Also referred to as “suicide headaches” due to a common event prior to effective treatment.

    Smokeydabear94 ,

    Also, also referred to as exploding head syndrome

    BreadstickNinja ,

    Exploding head syndrome is something different and a potential side effect of rapid discontinuation of SSRIs. I’ve had it and it’s different from a migraine.

    Smokeydabear94 ,

    Upon refreshing my memory you are correct. I just must have assumed they referred to the same thing

    Kase , (edited )

    wtf, that sounds awful

    eta: “suicide headaches,” “exploding head syndrome,” I am so fucking upset that people suffer from things like this. Idk, I just hope you guys are okay. :(

    andy_wijaya_med ,
    @andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world avatar

    You’re right. There are other options though. Like oxygen therapy triptan, etc. I don’t understand why didn’t the doctor just prescribe the drug. Just let the patient sign an informed consent… especially if the patient isn’t pregnant and not planning pregnancy at the moment.

    FlowVoid ,

    Because the doctor prescribed a different drug.

    ikidd ,
    @ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

    Holy fucking Handmaid’s Tale.

    “Your womb is worth more than you.”

    I hope they take his license after the insurance companies drop him.

    Salamendacious ,
    @Salamendacious@lemmy.world avatar

    Maybe I’m just being pessimistic but I’m nervous that she’s going to lose and this whole misery machine is just going to keep churning.

    jenniebuckley ,
    @jenniebuckley@lemmy.world avatar

    Good

    aceshigh ,
    @aceshigh@lemmy.world avatar

    Good. They need to be sued.

    FlowVoid ,

    Don’t get your hopes up. She sued pro se, which means she couldn’t find or doesn’t want a lawyer to take her case. Either way, it is very unlikely she will win.

    DarthBueller ,

    I suspect that such decisions are being driven by fear of tort liability WAY more than any religious or social beliefs of the medical practitioners. I’m not trying to argue in favor of denying women needed medical treatment in any way, shape, or form—it’s just that my lawyer senses are tingling, and I wonder if this is an area where Doctors are overall more likely to get sued if they offer the treatment than deny the treatment. Any MDs in here want to offer a more informed opinion of what the F is going on with such denial of care situations?

    SatanicNotMessianic , (edited )

    No, not in New York. These were personal decisions on the part of the health care providers, and I think this lawsuit is not only appropriate but desperately needed.

    The suit is exactly targeted. When fetal personhood is considered to outweigh the life of the mother, it’s absolutely something that needs to be fought tooth and nail. When a hypothetical future fetus is determined to be more important than the life and health of the mother, we’ve entered into a zone that can only be called psychotic.

    There is no case that makes it more clear that they’re turning women into sub-persons.

    DarthBueller ,

    Thanks.

    abraxas ,

    This is the thing, and why this case seems shoe-in. None of the bullshit the recent SCOTUS has been saying about fetal rights can possibly hold if there isn’t a fetus in the first place.

    And I hate that as a pro-choicer I’m the one on the side of “erode the decision”, but we need to slowly slip law back off this ledge. First a case where we know there wasn’t a fetus. Then a case that erodes the amount of pregnancy testing a patient needs before receiving lifesaving care for herself. Etc.

    I still cannot believe we live in a post-Dobbs world.

    SatanicNotMessianic ,

    Yes, exactly. On both the childfree and 2XC forums on the other site, there were frequent first person stories about adult women being refused processed like tubal ligation without their husband’s permission (or refused outright if unmarried), or steered away from medicines that could cause pregnancy complications even if they were not and were not planning on becoming pregnant. In hindsight, of course it would have to spill over to this kind of thing post-Roe.

    I really hope the ACLU/PP/NARAL and everyone else with skin in this is planning the case-by-case strategy you’re talking about. We got to where we are because the other side was playing the long game up to now, when they’re shoving everything through at once. We are going to need to roll it back with a multi-year strategy as well, unfortunately.

    assassin_aragorn ,

    Amen, Republicans saw the gradual erosion of sexism and took that personally. I suspect part of this now is revenge.

    We need groups like the Satanic Church to fight fire with fire. Sue against things that could possibly hurt a fetus if you got pregnant tomorrow. Undue stress at work? Being exposed to harmful vapors and substances? Being treated roughly by police? Sue the ever living fuck out of them.

    I don’t doubt that Republicans will apply a double standard, but we need to make sure that double standard is constantly broadcasted so the people turn on them.

    tryptaminev ,

    Couldnt the MD get a written confirmation from the patient that they informed them about the risks for a potential fetus?

    FlowVoid ,

    That’s unlikely to make a difference in court. Doctors are responsible for recommending the least risky treatment options. They aren’t supposed to leave everything up to the patient.

    FlowVoid , (edited )

    Yes, this is very likely driven by fear of a malpractice lawsuit. Medications that can harm a fetus are supposed to be a last resort for those who can get pregnant. So if there are other potential medications for this woman, she will likely find it difficult to get a prescription for this one regardless of the doctor’s religious beliefs.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •