Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
So, uninvolved women on birth control NEVER get pregnant? Hmmm, that's odd because it's simply not true. The point is, as was mentioned by some wise sage above, an issue of malpractice. You tell the doc "Oh hey, I'm on the pill and not involved anyhow" so they give you medicine X. A week or a month or three months later, while still taking the prescription, you get smashed at a bar and go home with some sleazy dude. BAM! Your pill failed you now (say you were on Med X AND an antibiotic, which can mess up the pill easily). Now you are pregnant. But, you keep taking Med X. Nine months later, your mutant spawn is born. You sue the doctor. Precedent would suggest you'd win.
SO... if you want to complain about the ROOT cause of the overuse of pregnancy questioning and screening, you should bitch at the ignorant women out there that fuck it up for everyone else. Sadly, there are a lot of them (ignorant people who fuck it up for everyone else... not just women).
In fact, if you are annoyed by ANY type of over cautious action, you can inevitably blame it on stupid people, stupid lawsuits or a combination thereof.
|
QFT.
This is why we have warning labels on everything from dry cleaning bags to hairbrushes.
There is no way of knowing if the drug you're given today will mess you up later and medical malpractice is outrageous already.
When I was on fertility drugs, there came "warnings" in the news that these drugs have the potential for causing ovarian cancer later in life. Well, 15 years later and no one has verified that yet, it was a guess based on some obscure study.
If a doctor refuses to treat you because of the possibility of pregnancy later and the woman knows for sure she'll never get pregnant, she has the choice of finding another doctor. But I don't think it's unreasonable at all for a doctor to be cautious in this regard.-it's ultimately the patient's move.