Oops, your IUD fell out! Praise Jesus!

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug
Oops, your IUD fell out! Praise Jesus!

"I accidentally pulled out your IUD. I gently tugged and out it came ... I cut the string than went back and gently pulled and out it came. It must have not been in properly." That might have been somewhat reassuring -- oh well, accidents happen -- only, the nurse continued to explain that "having the IUD come out was a good thing" and then offered, "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."Hmm. The nurse continued: "Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug."

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/01/22/iud_abortion/inde...

Hee hee! Innocent

Hope she and her employer get sued into the next universe. 

Michelle

Wow.  That's incredible.  I hope so too!  And it amazes me that others in their office joke about this women's malpractice, as if it's a funny and cute thing to do to rip someone's IUD out.  That's fucking painful!

Star Spangled C...

"Malpractice" seems to be a correct description in this case, Michelle. I'm surprised this nurse hasn't been sued.

Michelle

She is being sued.

Michelle

And not just for malpractice, but also for assault and battery, if I'm not mistaken.

Maysie Maysie's picture

It is assault, no question about that. 

This is so gross and horrible and while I'm glad she's being sued, how many other practitioners do this, in more and less horrible ways, and it doesn't make the news? How many times has this nurse done this and gotten away with it? She could probably tell us, since she brags about it and finds it "funny". Fuck.

Snert Snert's picture

1.  I hope the lawsuit is fantastically succe$$ful.

2.  Ironic link to another babble! 

Star Spangled C...

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I only read what was posted, not the link. I would ahve been shocked if she WASN'T being sued so it's nice to see my world make sense again. And I know enough about malpractice issues that there's really no doubt in my mind that the lawsuit will be successful.

Star Spangled C...

By the way, the article goes on to mention the idea of "provider conscience" legislation that lets healthcare professionals refuse to perform certain services like abortion if it goes against their beleifs. I'm curious as to what people here think of this idea. My own feelings are mixed...

Stargazer

Mine are not mixed. These people should be fired. They have zero right to accept a job with responsibilities to those they serve and then claim it is against their "morals".

 

Fuck them. 

Summer

It bothers me that there are medical practioners that have anti-choice, anti-women views.  That said, I wouldn't want one of them going anywhere near my body to insert or adjust an IUD let alone to perform an abortion.  Think what that crazy nurse might accidentally on purpose do during an abortion (I know nurses don't perform abortions).  As long as there are doctors and nurses available who will provide medical services I need, that's fine for me. 

The gov't can change the laws; it can't change people's opinions. There should be an obligation on the state to ensure that there are sufficient doctors/nurses to provide these services and those who refues to perform them must be obligated to refer the patient to another doctor who will.  A doctor or nurse who refuses to refer the woman to a pro-choice professional or otherwise misleads the patients should have their license revoked.

Star Spangled C...

Your first point is my thought exactly, Summer. I'm a surgeon and rely on many people when i'm in the OR from other doctors to the anaestheseologists to nurses and the LAST thing I want is for anyone in that room to not be 100% committed to the procedure or for anyone to ahve any reservations whatsoever, moral or otherwise. There are enough things to worry about and enough things that can go wrong that adding anything else to that equation is medically reckless.

I don't think they should be fired, Stargazer. If a nurse is good at their job and works in numerous different areas, if there's one specific area in which they do not want to practice, that's not an issue. If there are multiple nurses available and say that there's an abortion being performed in Room A and an apendectomy being done in Room B, if they'd rather work on teh apendectomy and another person is happy to cover teh abortion, there's no cost to the patient or the hospital.

Where I DO have a problem is more with pharmacists refusing to dispense certain drugs that have been legitimately prescribed by a doctor.

Stargazer

I suggest that if you were a woman, you would have an entirely different attitude about this. But you're not.

Star Spangled C...

Maybe so. I'm speaking as a doctor who doesn't want to see good, valuable people lose their jobs because of their moral beliefs so long as they don't interfere with the health of patients or the success of the hospital.

Michelle

I'm a bit of a hardass on this topic (no surprise there), but I also think that there CAN be a way to resolve the issue with some compromise.  I think it would be thread drift to discuss it here, though.  This thread is about a woman who has been physically assaulted by a health care practitioner, not about medical staff being forced to perform procedures against their beliefs. 

Michelle

In other news, this thread is being moved to the feminism forum, since violence against women and interference with their reproductive rights is a feminist issue. 

remind remind's picture

I do not see people like this nurse being good, nor valuable, nor indeed having morals...

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

Scout

Quote:
good, valuable people lose their jobs because of their moral beliefs

See I have a hard time seeing moralistic people as good people, but that's just me and I'm a heathen. Anti-women medical personel are not good people and should find a job where the morals don't fall on others. If fact I think it's really quite horrid to go become a doctor and then dictate the care of patient based on your religous beliefs. Let's really play God eh?

Stargazer

Freaking right Scout. Good post.

Star Spangled C...

I posted this in the other thread but since people seem to be discussing it here, I'll re-post part of what I said in order to clarify:

 

In the other thread, someone took issue with me referring to "good" nurses who refuse to be involved in abortions. Now, I wasn't using the word "good" to describe tehir moral character but rather their abilities as a nurse. I know very well - and anyone who has ever had to spend time in a hospital knows very well - that a good nurse can be worth their weight in gold. if an excellent nurse refuses to be involved in abortions but is of great value in so many other areas, I think it would be borderline criminal for them to lose their jobs. And in the end, its the patients who suffer.

When I'm doing a procedure (an orthoscopic knee surgery, for example), I could give a damn what my team thinks about abortion. It's about as relevant to the success of the procedure as their favourite colour or if they prefer tea or coffee.

The real question is "Can patients get teh medical services that tehy need?" Assuming there's more than one person available and capable of doing it and both are qualified, why does it matter whether Person A or Person B does it as long as it gets done?

Also, Remind, jsut to be clear in case there is any confusion: I certainly was not referring to this particular nurse. SHE should never be allowed to practice again as she is a threat to patients. But there's a big difference between actually assaulting a patient in your care and opting out of participating in a procedure.

Scout

Quote:
When I'm doing a procedure (an orthoscopic knee surgery, for example), I could give a damn what my team thinks about abortion.

Well you should care, medical professional more so than most shouldn't be judging the morality of medical procedures at all. 

Or is there a hierarchy we all don't know about? Are you all like "well knee surgery is very moral, usually fit people need knee surgery but those bypasses are less moral becasue those people eat to much junk food?". Can you imagine if people started getting all judgy about that shit? Would you care then?

An abortion is a medical procedure and it should not be different in the minds of a medical professional in away from a knee surgery, if it is then I suggest your "good" nurse really ain't so skilled at her job. Cause her job isn't to judge the morality of the procedure it's to make sure people get the care "they" require.

Star Spangled C...

if someone DID have a moral objection to bypass surgery and i was either performing or having said surgery, then i don't want that person in the room. period. However, I've yet to meet anyone who actually has such an objection whereas I'm sure there are many who have moral reservations about abortion.

Saying that abortion is comparable to objecting to a bypass cause the person ate too much junk food is a misnomer because objecting to abortion is about objecting to the procedure itself not to the patient as would be the case of junk food person. If someone is unwilling to treat certain patients whereas they'd treat others in the same position, yes, that's a disqualification. If the grand wizard of the KKK comes in for life-saving surgery, you are morally obligated to do everything you can to save their life, no matter what you think of them personally.

The notion that medical professionals shouldn't be judging things morally just isn't the way the world works. Everyone - whether tehy're a doctor or a teacher or a plumber or whatever - has moral viewpoints and pretending otherwise doesn't get us anywhere. Doctors exercise "morality" in other areas. For example, certain states (not mine) have legalized assisted suicide. Now, I happen to think that the terminally ill should have a right to decide to end their life but i recognize that others strongly disagree and I would never want anyone forced to participate in an assisted suicide if they objected to it.

Women have teh right to an abortion. The Supreme Court has upheld that right. None of us have the right to prevent that. But at the same time, no one should be compelled to aprticipate in it.

I have the right to drink beer. That's my legal right. But if, for example, there's a devout Muslim who is strongly opposed to alcohol and he owns a convenience store and refuses to sell alcohol in their store, that's their choice. as long as I can buy my beer elsewhere, I'm not being harmed.

Stargazer

Freaking right they should be either "compelled" to perform or assist in one, or they should lose their jobs. The end.

 

 

Star Spangled C...

Should I be morally compelled to perform abortions or lose MY job? I perform other medical procedures that are very valuable. What's the difference if i don't perform one specific one?

The big idea these days to peaceful co-existence among people with different values is the notion of "reasonable accomodation." If we can accomodate someone's religious or moral beliefs without causing undue hardships to others, then we should. There's a nurse with whom i work who is an orthodox Jew and HER moral values preclude her from working on the Jewish sabbath (except in the ICU since this work is considered life-saving and takes precedence). Her supervisor knows this and so they don't schedule her to work friday nights or sturday mornings or if tehy really must make her, she'll be assigned to teh ICU. This seems pretty reasonable to me. Patients still get their care and this nurse gets to stay true to her beliefs. You need a balance between respecting people's values and not hurting others. There have been all sorts of cases involving Sikhs and their turbans for example and the way it's tended to go is that in situations where a uniform is required, like the RCMP, a Sikh wearing a turban is just fine. Why lose a potentially good person just because they want to be true to their values? In other cases where it might be a danger - like a firefighter who can't wear a helmet because of the turban and puts their life at risk - THEN we can say that the accomodation isn't so "reasonable" and the person has to decide take off the turban or find another job. But if a nurse doesn't want to be involved in abortion and there are other nurses who can do it, just like the Sikh wearing RCMP offer - why lsoe a valuable employee over religious beleifs that don't hurt anyone?

oldgoat

Star Spangled Canadian, I'm not sure if the examples you choose are particularly valid.  The Orthodox Jew nurse you describe is being accomodated, quite legitimately IMO, around scheduling preferences.  I'll bet if there was some sort of SARs outbreak or something which caused catastrophic staffing problems she'd fill in as required.

Also, I agree completely with what Stargazer said insofar as the particular issues she raises goes, which all involve the sanctity of womens choices over their bodies, and the threats thereto from the dominant patriarchal society. (that they may happen at the hands of other women notwithstanding.)

 

HOWEVER!...and maybe this belongs in other than the feminist forum, SSC the issue you raise is not a simple one.  Merely the examples given are.  I for instance, were I working in a psychiatric ward, would have a hard time following certain practices and proceedures which may be both standard and legal, based on my understanding of mental health in tandem with my conscience.  I don't want to see the point you raised, one concerning the sovereignty of the individual human conscience, dismissed as a black and white issue.  In that larger picture, I can't really say I have an answer.

Actually, this would be a good Body 'n Soul topic, or maybe the Humanities section.  We should probably stick to the issue raised by Doug in the OP as far as this thread in the Feminist section goes. 

 

oldgoat

Ok, Michelle's way ahead of me and started just such a thread here. 

Star Spangled C...

Oldgoat, I think the Jew not wanting to work on teh sabbath and the person opposed to abortion not wanting to be involved with them both fall into the area of "scheduling preferences." If someone doesn't want to be scheduled for friday nights and someone else is fine with it, no harm is done. If someone doesn't want to be scheduled to work abortions and someone else doesn't mind, same issue. What matters isn't who works what, when and where but rather that it gets done. As long as patients get nursing care on friday nights and as long as women get access to abortion, it's all good.

And, you're right, if there's a massive SARS outbreak, it may very well be a case where you compell her to work on teh sabbath. Similarly, if a massive number of abortions need to be performed right now and there aren't other nurses available, compelling a nurse to assist would also be reasonable but i don't see that scenario happening.

I think your example of the psychiatric ward is a good one. if those are your legitiamte feelings, you shouldn't apply for a job specifically in a psych ward. but if you work for the hospital as a whole and prefer not to be scheduled to that ward and others like working there and are happy to go, no problem. I mean, if someone applies to work at the Morgentaler Clinic and objects to abortion, obviously that's not gonna work out for anyone.

oldgoat

I'm cutting 'n pasting that to the other thread where I think the topic is being developed more fully. 

 

This one shoulld probably stay more specifically with the topic in the OP.

oldgoat

...So yeah may the nurse and everyone associated with her be sued into penury and beyond, but I'd say crimminal charges with the possibility of jail time if found guilty would also be appropriate.

Makwa Makwa's picture

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

I don't think they should be fired, Stargazer. If a nurse is good at their job and works in numerous different areas, if there's one specific area in which they do not want to practice, that's not an issue. If there are multiple nurses available and say that there's an abortion being performed in Room A and an apendectomy being done in Room B, if they'd rather work on teh apendectomy and another person is happy to cover teh abortion, there's no cost to the patient or the hospital.

That is so absurd.  If for some obscure reason, a health care worker objected to blood transfusions, would it be ok, if they 'accidentally' cut off the tap, or if they disagreed with artificial extension of heart and breath machines?  I see this as a criminal act, and am appalled.

Makwa Makwa's picture

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Should I be morally compelled to perform abortions or lose MY job?

Yes.  And stop carrying on about turbans, (epithet removed as contrary to rabble policy).

Star Spangled C...

Don't be ridiculous, Makwa. I specifically said i wasn't defending THIS nurse. I said she should never be allowed to practice again. I also pointed out (not that it should be necessary) that there's a huge difference between opting to not participate in something and actively interfering with a medical procedure.

And I have no idea why you felt the need to call me racist for my comments plainly DEFENDING the right of people to wear a turban on the job. I guess I can expect that next I'll be called an anti-Semite for supporting accomodating a Jewish woman's sabbath observance.

Tarkovsky

SSC  in the eyes of some - you're racist simply because you were born

Stargazer

Oh bullshit.

Fish or cut bait. 

 

And thank you Makwa. 

 

remind remind's picture

Tarkovsky wrote:
SSC  in the eyes of some - you're racist simply because you were born

Please get out of the feminist forum with your snide comments.

And I do not see the discourse that SCC is providing as pro-feminist.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

Summer

Makwa, your extension of SCC's argument doesn't make sense.  He wasn't defending the IUD removing nurse in question.  He was saying if someone doesn't want to perform an abortion then have them do something else.  So, using your example, if someone objects to blood transfusions b/c of religious beliefs, the solution would be not be force them to do a blood transfusion but to have someone else do it.  If the person interferes with the blood transfusion then they should be fired and jailed etc. 

 

 

 

 

oldgoat

This is straying far away from where the feminist forum should be.  More global issues arising from this were moved to another threead for a reason.  Can we stay on topic please.

Slumberjack

pookie wrote:
...Calling SCC a "racist twit" because he brought up the turban issue....is ridiculous.

When racialized people take offence at a statement in this context, it isn't necessarily useful to determine the merits of their feelings on the matter from a privileged vantage point. It doesn't require our approval.

Makwa Makwa's picture

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

And I have no idea why you felt the need to call me racist for my comments 

You are correct, my comment was in contravention of rabble policy. I have removed it and apologize for that comment.  I remain however, deeply offended with the equation of reasonable accommodation of religious and cultural precepts with what is essentially a sexual assault and an involuntary medical procedure on a woman to remove her right to reproductive choice.  Now, I consider that I am treading far too heavily in the feminist forum, and will comment no further.

Unionist

Shall we "accommodate" doctors or nurses whose "religion" prohibits them from treating certain categories of people - in order not to totally lose their "skills"? I believe South Africa once had a "religion" like that.

It is unbelievable offensive and disingenuous that anyone would compare accommodation for a person who doesn't want to work on the "Sabbath" with a person who doesn't accept women's rights as recognized by our society.

Persons who will not participate in abortion for "religious" reasons cannot be allowed to work in medical facilities where such procedures are performed. No ones religious beliefs should have even the shred of a possibility of trumping the rights of women, as is confirmed by Section 28 of the Charter:

Quote:
Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

You will also recall the babble thread where we discussed the Québec government's move to entrench exactly this same principle in the Québec Charter.

Michelle

Once again, let's stick to discussing this issue, which really doesn't have anything to do with religious accommodation - this one is about an actual assault by a pro-life nurse on a patient.  Let's go to the other thread to discuss religious accommodation in the workplace.

pookie

never mind, I see the mods have asked that this discussion stop.

pookie

Calling SCC a "racist twit" because he brought up the turban issue - practically an archetype of accommodation cases - is ridiculous.

Not that I necessarily agree with him on the conscience issue as it applies to providing a medical service that is essential for women's health.

But, come on. 

ETA: The original post inspiring my comment has been edited, and I apologize to Mawka if I came across as heavy-handed.  I do think there is place for inter-POC discussions of these things. 

 Actually I was going to simply delete this post but thought I would just add the clarification.