|
On Doctors Viewing Women as Pre-Pregnant
Original NY Times Blog Post
Quote:
While I recognize that the feelings expressed are true, I can't help but feel exasperated by these attitudes. The ramifications of pregnancy during medical diagnosis and treatment are so huge that it has to come up and be documented at all times. Being upset by this is like being upset by the speeches airline attendants make prior to take-off on ANY flight. It's not likely that your plane will crash, but if it does, it's likely to be a big deal. Same with pregnancy, only now we add in the chance that the patient is unaware or lying. Given the legal climate in which doctors work, I can understand why a woman's potential for pregnancy would be of primary concern in treatment of any kind. Honestly, I wouldn't take anyone's word for it either. So what's the deal? Am I an insensitive male who just can't get it? Is this really an issue of women's rights? |
No, more an issue of ignorance on the part of the medical profession. Example: I am established into my second century. During my recent visit to the ER, the xray technician asked me "any chance you could be pregnant?" When I stated my last period was April of 2007, she responded, "well, you never know..."
A 16 month pregnancy? nope, doubt it.... Saying that, I will say that our hormones play a huge part in our well being. Women produce estrogen, progesterone and testosterone. These help to regulate our hearts, protect us from certain disorders and affect fertility. If one is out of whack, everything else follows. It's not a stretch to say that our reproductive organs have a lot to do with our overall health and I think those women need to get over it and just admit they're female. |
More importantly, the consequences to fetuses of drugs prescribed for a woman who is or will soon be pregnant is massive. While it might be a bit annoying to be asked first about whether or not you're pregnant, it's an incredibly important factor in the diagnosis of disease, and the prescription options available.
|
I don't mind measures taken to be sure we're not pregnant before treatment of any kind - I get that. What I *don't* get are situations such as the one I found myself in last year. (Was it only last year??) I wanted an IUD. My gyno refused to give me one. Why? Ha. Okay, based on my having a couple of heavier cycles, and some random microbe that isn't pathogenic and no one ever tests for, she decided I had had PID. Now, let me assure you that there is no way in hell I would be able to treat PID with Advil. I would be vomiting, have severe abdominal pain, have all kinds of symptoms together, possibly have a history of STI, etc etc. She NEVER ONCE diagnosed me with PID. But because I *might* have had it, and I hadn't had children yet, she wouldn't give me an IUD. Because IUDs plus PID = possible infertility. And thus that would mean she'd be liable for my infertility.
The whole thing was ridiculous. Not only was the risk laughable, but I was willing to waive my rights to sue for such outcomes, as I can adopt and I would be okay with that. But that didn't make a difference. I have a different gynecologist now. One who treats what is, and not what might be if the stars aligned on the 3rd Tuesday in June. |
With the FDA failing us in leaps and bounds, having flipper babies again isn't something that anyone would want to have happen to their children. I can understand some of this to a degree. However, I'm still appalled at the whole answer, "But why take the chance..." for just about anything that is pregancy related.
|
Quote:
Frankly, this is where we end up by being as insanely litigious a culture as we are. This is the result. It's not that medicine is sexist, it's that it's been forced to cover its ass against any potential future liability--and putting oneself at risk of liability for a woman's infertility is a MASSIVE deal. And it's ridiculous in many cases, but there you have it. The cost of malpractice insurance forces doctors to do ridiculous things sometimes. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
and that right there is the root cause of all this: liability. in this overly litigious, sue-happy country we live in, doctors are scared shitless, and rightly so. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Women who are pregnant or who can become pregnant should not handle TFP due to specific birth defects.
I won't pretend to know crap about women and medical care. All I know is forceps are cold and passing a 12cm head through a 10cm hole is probably slightly painful. It seems to me that it's better to ask than to assume though. Rendering someone infertile is quite a big deal and even though I'm fairly sure I don't want kids, having the ability taken away while trying to fix some unrelated problem would kinda piss me off. |
I really have no problem with my health professional ascertaining my pregnancy status before treating me. I have never considered that approach to be even remotely offensive--I always saw it as a purely medical thing, and really quite important, actually. I have never felt like "just a uterus," especially since many of my doctors/nurses have been women themselves. Yes, I have a uterus, and I have reproductive organs. They are part of my body, and medicine is about treating the whole body.
Are these people offended when doctors ask them if they are on X medication, or have had Y surgery in the past? It's called a medical history. Why would a potential for pregnancy be seen any differently? My 2 cents. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
As a woman and a medical professional (dental field) I take no offense in bieng treated as pre pregnant. I truely think that there are two reasons behind it. I feel the vast majority of the medical community really DOES care about harming any potential child you may be unknowingly pregant with or conceive without intention. The other, as several have stated above, is being scared shitless of getting sued. There's a story of a dentist several years ago prescribing a female patient antibiotics. The dentist didn't ask her if she was on birth control pills. (Neither did the pharmacist for that matter, and not everyone gets all of their prescriptions filled at the same pharmacy, so a pharmacist may not know all of the drugs every customer takes.) The woman got pregnant and did not want to terminate. Well, the woman sued her dentist for a full 18yrs worth of child support. I ask every patient, male or female for a list of all medications. You wouldn't believe how many women don't think that BCP's count as medication. Anyhow, my boss is a total fool IMO b/c he never asks about BCP when he prescribes antibiotics b/c he's a total prude and the thought of knowing that about a woman makes him queazy.
IMO, cut the medical community some slack. The purpose of having a uterus and ovaries is to produce offspring. It's not the job of the professinal to have prior knowledge of your intentions, or lack there of, to use them. It's really no different than asking a man about his reproductive intentions and birth control methods if he were being given a drug that could cause bad sperm. I highly doubt most men would get there boxers in a twist over it. |
The fact is that from a biological standpoint, we're all baby making machines. Men have evaded responsibility because half of us are part of the process for three minutes rather than nine months. Combine that with the fact that our culture is full of people who will sue over everything and bitch and moan about more than that, and the willingness of juries to award absurd lump sums for the slightest infraction, and you end up with people afraid to act.
|
Add me to the "this is all about lawsuits" side. It happens to men, too; Many doctors won't perform a vasectomy unless the patient either has kids or has banked some sperm, and that's when the intent is to render someone sterile.
|
Quote:
You are right though, when you see a physician.. like it or not he/she is going to assess your ability to understand the warnings. He/she is going to also assess your behavior. If he/she believes that you are a risk the treatment may be denied. If a physician fails in that assessment or fails to have it properly documented, then that physician is up shit creek if things go wrong. A physician can say I don't believe in prescribing teratogenic drugs to female patients of child-bearing age that are not on birth control. Every question you answer is being examined and considered, whether it is how many partners you have, what illicit drugs you use, how much you drink, your age, your gender, how many different physicians that you see. Call it bias if you will but it is their name, their DEA license, their Medical License, their practice, their livelihood at stake with each patient that goes out the door. Frankly, it is amazing that anyone would even want to practice medicine these days. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's pretty simple. Hurt babies=large jury verdicts. It's just impossible to win that one in court, no matter what you do. The legal standard for medical malpractice is more than flexible enough to allow virtually any jury to find against a doctor whose actions (even with informed consent) ended up harming a fetus in utero. It's not so much as social issue as it is a legal, malpractice issue. If we had a system that didn't encourage people to be so litigious and didn't place so much discretion with juries, doctors might be a bit more willing to be flexible in that regard.
|
The medical world realizes human limitations.
Every method of birth control has potential for failure, save physical alteration. Every woman not rendered infertile is potentially capable of becoming pregnant. ie - A woman who is abstinent by choice could be raped. A woman who is on the pill could miss a day. IUD and the depo shot are not necessarily designed for each woman's individual body chemistry. If you're bothered about being treated as "pre-pregnant", then go ahead and find yourself a doctor who will tie your tubes or remove your ovaries and/or uterus. If you are a woman, you might produce children. Deal with it however you must: mentally, emotionally, and physically. Don't complain. |
ok, to speak as a physician on this subject, I ruled out OB/GYN for this very reason. Women get upset over these sort of questions, but I would NEVER treat a woman of childbearing age without contemplating the possibility of pregnancy. The possibility that she will meet someone down the road and change her mind about children is both real and statistically common. The fact that the pt. tells me that she doesn't plan on having children is irrelevant to her ability to sue later, and there is no legal documents I am aware of that can prevent such litigation. I cannot fathom OB/GYN as an option due to the incredibly high malpractice insurance.
|
I don't understand the uproar about this. If there are two medications, of equal effectiveness, and if you were to get pregnant while on one of them your children would have flippers and three noses, how is it offensive to always give women the one that won't create little mutants, even if they say they don't plan on getting pregnant?
There are no signs of pregnancy until weeks after conception, and a lot of meds and procedures negative effects are strongest in early first trimester. By the time you find out you are pregnant, you already have been for a couple weeks...you can't retroactively go back and untake the flipper-causing meds you've been on. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project