Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

    • uranibaba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

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

      “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus"

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              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@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                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.

          • t_jpeg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

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

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

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