Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.
Under his eye.
I have chronic pain. I also have the privilege of being male, so I do not have to go through what she went through, but I would probably not make it out of it alive considering how severe my pain is and what I tried to do about it once before.
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.
Yup. Common practive with anti-epileptics - some have worse implications for babies than others which is why those said others are used first.
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.
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.
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.
What birth defects would there be in this case?
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.
So the woman was pregnant?
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.
From the text in the original post, I assume she was not.
“determined to protect a hypothetical fetus"
She’s not pregnant, but doctors try to avoid long-term prescription of teratogenic drugs to patients who might become pregnant while taking them.
Which is super not ok. You get that, right?
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 WHO and European Medicines Agency
It is okay if there is a non teratogenic alternative that treats the targeted disease. Why risk teratogenicity when you can altogether avoid it?
NOT IN THE ARTICLE. not sure what bullshit this thread’s asserting
that is not the case here at all. READ THE GODDAMN ARTICLE. SHE WASN’T EVEN PREGNANT.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3415
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. https://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?
we live in a anti man society
Lol imagine writing this
“LOL”, idiot. Youre clearly not in the States obviously.
I am, indeed, in the US.
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.
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.
Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:
See also:
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.
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.
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.
Viagra is pretty safe, as drugs go. Are you thinking of Vioxx? That stuff was taken off the market.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It has been over a year since the appointment in question took place.
https://jezebel.com/woman-with-severe-chronic-pain-was-denied-medication-fo-1849569187
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. I’ll relay this along to her.
Even worse then the headline…
One of the nurses started calling other hospitals lying about what happened, and even found the patient on Facebook and messaged her partner
She knows has to travel outside of the state to get appointments
Well that sounds like an open-and-shut HIPPA violation case.
*HIPAA
*HIPPO
*HIPPOPOTAMUS
*WATERHORSE
And I thought the time my mom got “fired” from her primary care because the nurse flatout lied about her interaction with her was overkill…
Damn, unbelievable this shit is still happening. It was outrageous then, it’s just barbaric now.
Conservative = Regressive. The worst part is that they only pine for it because of nostalgia and nostalgia has a tendency to be viewed through rose colored glasses
Conservative = Regressive.
“Great Again” is just a euphemism for this.
To paraphrase a wise owl, when you look at something through rose colored glasses, all of the red flags are just flags.
I wonder which writer wrote that line. They should get recognition.
…. Wouldn’t they appear to be black flags?
…. So what you’re saying is you’d still have to be a total dumb ass to keep going in that direction? That’s an excellent point you made
I’m surprised this happened in NY. That’s the kind of BS you’d expect elsewhere.
This is so fucked up.
Up-state NY is more rural and conservative. Towns in the mountains can be fairly small and isolated; those areas vote extremely red.
Maybe but it was apparently in the Albany metro,
I know folks commute there from the Adirondacks but Albany’s one of the least religious cities in the world apparently
It’s upstate. Isn’t that like republican central?
Upstate, downstate, all around state. Anywhere outside of large urban centers-state.
It’s the same all around America. Further from the cities you get, the more you find people exhibiting inexplicable Southern affectation, MAGA cultism and general shitheel behavior. Like, there are portions of North East OH that are geographically closer to Canada than the Mason Dixon Line, yet they’re still flying traitor flags and sound more southern than actual southerners.
That Erie Canal route basically drags the rest of the state around kicking and screaming.
Even if the Syracuse, Utica, Rochester, Buffalo types resent being associated with NYC, they still vote the same shade of blue more often than not. Just a difference between east coast lefty vs Midwest lefty, because seriously, Erie Canal cities are just the furthest flung eastern fringes of the Midwest
As soon as you see “upstate”, you can bet it’s as provincial as any near midwestern state. I grew up along the southern border with PA. It’s more conservative than most people think. The Amish and Mennonite residents feel right at home in those communities.
Ah, I had no idea.
This wasn’t along the border though it was in Albany.
Upstate just means “not the city” of New York. I’m telling you about my knowledge of part of New York State, and, while anecdotal, I believe it is indicative of the more rural parts.
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.
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…”
deleted by creator
I’m worried Canada is going to build a wall
As someone who’s about to go to the hospital, plz send help…and bugles
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
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 :~;
I’m currently watching a handmaid’s tale. I know it’s fictional but my love for Canada has increased while watching the show.
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
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)
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?
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.
Couldnt the MD get a written confirmation from the patient that they informed them about the risks for a potential fetus?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks.
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.
Next week: drinking age for women raised to 50, just in case.
Right? What sort of bullshit is this. At least booze has no real gatekeepers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is that in the part 2 video?
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.
Which is why she’s suing and will hopefully take them to the cleaners.
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.
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?
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?
…
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.
So your assumption is that she lied or tried to pull one over on the Dr for pain meds?
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.
removed by mod
I’ve been saying this for years. Hope you don’t get banned.
If I do I do. But that’s where I am. We keep trying the ‘right’ thing to fix society and get past this shit.
Its. not. fucking. working.
It really is working. It might not be as fast as we want, and it’s definitely a bit of “two steps forwards, one step back,” but society is generally moving in the right direction.
It seems a lot more like half a step forward, one step back.
Tell this woman and the thousands of others like her that it’s working. I fucking dare you to go to her account and post don’t worry society is getting better just live with it for now.
I’m not responding to her specific situation, but the movement of society in general.
To be quite frank, we are beyond the time where incremental change is going to save us on so many issues, we might as well drastically raze the entire structure to the ground and rebuild anew. We shortly will not have the planet we used to because we’ve been trying this current method of polite effort. We need to be rude, aggressive, and dangerous to our opposition because they are trying to kill us. They are actively killing us. We are not winning yet and I don’t know if I have time to see us get there.
Anti-choice people shot and bombed doctors and clinics so it’s not exactly unprecedented.
So, you’re okay sinking to those same lows?
Yes. Do you think we’re really going to take a doctor like this and sit him down and make him a functioning member of society who treats women with respect?
No, he should lose his medical license and potentially suffer other consequences, but that’s through the process of a civilized society. The nurse practitioner’s actions sound criminal and should be prosecuted as such. No need to act barbaric.
And that’ll fix society? Because we’ve been trying it that way for a very long time. Things are getting so much better doing it that way right?
Day by day society is getting more progressive and moving away from things like this right? Right?
-
Yes, society is getting more progressive.
-
Even if it didn’t, violence won’t solve anything.
We are getting more progressive? When did we get roe versus Wade back? Did we stop trying to outlaw trans people? When did the police stop executing black people in the street just for fun?
These people do what they want because it’s literally legal for them to do it. Nobody is doing anything to stop them. Now if they all started getting drug into the middle of the street and sat on fire they would think twice.
I don’t disagree that violence isn’t the correct answer in this situation, but “Violence never solves anything” is just a nice platitude and is demonstrably false. Most of the rights and privileges we have today only came about through violent means. It is more accurate to say violence doesn’t solve everything.
Or to put it another way:
The Magna Carta was a peace treaty.
The ideas of a democratic republic were born of the French and American Revolutions
MLK was the peaceful side of a civil rights movement that would not have had the same power without Malcom X and the black panthers.
Overtime, the 5 day work week, unions and most labor protections came at the expense of a LOT of blood in the United States.
Women’s Suffrage was not a peaceful movement either.In the history of most countries, mass violent protest has been the protest most likely to achieve its goals. Saying “Violence never solves anything” is to turn a blind eye to history.
-
The thing is…it worked. People training to be doctors stopped going into abortion-related fields, some schools stopped teaching late-term abortion techniques, and it overall became more difficult to get abortions. And now abortions are becoming illegal again in many states. Their side won.
Not yet. A lot of doctors are leaving those states so that they can practice freely without fear of being prosecuted for doing what’s best for their patients. Looking at you, Idaho
You say, “won” like nothing can ever change. Dobbs is definitely a step back but I am certain it’ll change back in my lifetime. I’m not an American, but where I am, we’ve adjusted to the threats against abortion providers and I think many US states have done the same.
As the saying goes, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
By any means necessary.
