OK Doctor Refuses to Provide Emergency

[THE MATRIX]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/30/oklahoma-doctor-refuses-to-provide-emergency-contraceptive-to-rape-victim-on-basis-of-religious-conscience/

The woman and her daughter were reportedly turned away because the hospital did not have any nurses who conduct rape exams on staff. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) are specially trained professionals who deal only with the delicate process of conducting rape exams. The SANE program is coordinated through the YWCA and is a collaboration with local law enforcement, the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office and public health officials. The collaborative effort is designed to ensure evidence is properly collected and stored without re-traumatizing the victim and ensuring the most effective prosecution of the perpetrator possible.

~snip~

In this case the doctor involved refused to conduct any exam, nor would he dispense any emergency contraception. The hospital issued a statement grounding those decisions in the need to coordinate through the SANE program. It could also be that this doctor had a moral objection to treating rape victims and dispensing emergency contraception, and thanks to abusive expanses of the conscience-clause by the right, simply refused to deal with her. Either way it’s a lose-lose for rape victims who now face the prospect of looking for treatment after an assault only to be turned away because of a lack of resources or because of religious objections.

Your Religious Freedom at works folks.

[Charlie Prime]

Are you against religious freedom?

[ninjadude]

Are you against religious freedom?

that's not religious freedom. It's religious fascism.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Are you against religious freedom?

you know that old saying "your right to swing your fist stops at my right to not be hit on the nose"? That's what we're talking about here, that doctor's right to freedom eeprived someome else of their right under the law. Biblically, this is that "giving unto Caesar" business Christ talked about.

[Rafterman]

Quite a few disconnects in the story if you read it closely.

I'm not seeing anything in the story that supports the headline other than the doctor "could" have made his decision based on his religious beliefs - no evidence provided. He "could" have also based his decision on his belief that she was raped by a demon and that we need more demon/human hybrids on the planet.

And where exactly are the police in this story?

I think someone over at Raw Story is trying a bit to hard to make a political point.

[Charlie Prime]

> I think someone over at Raw Story is trying a bit to hard to make a political point.

That's the entire purpose of that "news" website.

[lightly]

1. It's not a law that rape victims must be examined by SANE (sexual assault nurse examiners) ..the claim that the hospital did not have any nurses who conduct rape exams on staff is of no consequence either, because the doctor could have examined her.

2." Emergency contraception" is legal so the doctor's personal beliefs are, in this case, relevant only to him.

3. The doctor was in effect Denying Care by refusing to examine the victim . That is illegal.

[Charlie Prime]

> It's not a law that rape victims must be examined by SANE (sexual assault nurse examiners) ..the claim that the hospital did not have any nurses who conduct rape exams on staff is of no consequence either, because the doctor could have examined her.

False. Law or not, it is of consequence if the doctor violated hospital policies specifiying what personnel with what certifications must be present during certain procedures. The doctor could be fired. You don't know. You didn't investigate.

> " Emergency contraception" is legal so the doctor's personal beliefs are, in this case, relevant only to him.

False. Doctors' personal beliefs are highly relevant to the work they perform. Doctors who assist in CIA prisoner torture have different beliefs than those who refuse such work. Doctors who perform free surgeries have beliefs at odds with those who ridicule such charity.

> The doctor was in effect Denying Care by refusing to examine the victim . That is illegal.

False. Before making your pronouncements of illegality you didn't even investigate this incident enough to discover that the doctor was female, much less whether any legally-definable denial of care occured.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Charlie Prime

[Rafterman]

1. It's not a law that rape victims must be examined by SANE (sexual assault nurse examiners) ..the claim that the hospital did not have any nurses who conduct rape exams on staff is of no consequence either, because the doctor could have examined her.

2." Emergency contraception" is legal so the doctor's personal beliefs are, in this case, relevant only to him.

3. The doctor was in effect Denying Care by refusing to examine the victim . That is illegal.

Hospital policy is hospital policy. There could also be very sound legal and liability issues related to non-SANE certified professionals doing post-assault examinations.

And, again, nothing in the "article" says that the physician refused care based on religious or personal beliefs - it simply says he "could" have done so.