betsy

zzzzzzzzzzz

Of course you won't have any idea at all about everything we're discussing - including how come I'm talking about doctors prescribing painkillers/steroids - when all it seems you do is read and answer what's exactly right infront of you with total disregard for the whole flow of the discussion. You're simply choosing a statement here and there and taking it out of context, or muddling and trying to confuse the discussion, or detracting and deflecting by simply saying "I don't know why..." That is resorting to cheap tricks. That's being dishonest. And you know what, it only shows that you know you've got no grounds at all with your arguments. But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that you truly are confused. So my advice to you before you post any reply is to go back and read if you don't understand why something is suddenly included in the discussion. It just did not crop up for no reason. And take your time reading....and try to understand what you read! Like this one. It seems you've got a lot of re-reading to do. So, chop-chop! The fact that he has religion as his excuse has been his only leg to stand on. If it wasn't for religion he wouldn't have people supporting him on the internet. And he'd have been disciplined or fired from his job and it would have barely made a ripple in the news. Because unlike religion, stupidity or incompetence don't have special protections afforded to them. WRONG! The fact that he has HIS RIGHT to his religious belief has been his SOLID leg to stand on! If it wasn't for this RIGHT, he wouldn't have people like me supporting him on the internet! If he did not have this RIGHT, he'd have been disciplined or fired from his job! Because unlike what others may want to believe, a right is a right is a right! Stupidity or incompetence to make logical decisions or stubborness or whatever, don't give a special PRIVILEGE to stomp on someone's RIGHT just because they don't agree with it! And that is why the Conscience Clause was placed, to ensure that rights are accomodated and respected! And may I add Kimmy: he has as much right to his freedom of religion as you have to your freedom of speech. He can practice his religion according to his beliefs and you can blather on according to your beliefs.

Oh I do agree with you. I think it is the hospital's fault! And the administrators knew...and more or less, admitted to that mistake.

This is just another circling argument Cyber. Go back and read. All these things you're asking had already been explained. Kimmy now, is just trying to nit-pick on any little thing she can nit-pick on....and now it seems, playing on words and statements (and I hope not deliberately)!

So how can Gish possibly allow the next rape victim he sees to talk to one of these specially trained nurses that Good Samaritan now has on hand, when he knows full well that that nurse is going to tell that woman about the emergency contraception pill? Well I find it surprising that you don't seem to understand the concept of belief and conscience. Well I guess now it's more understandable that the Conscience Law was put in place to protect doctors' religious belief since some people don't have any clue at all how moral dilemmas and conscience can be so important for some. Gish cannot stop Boyer from going to another doctor and from getting those pills from someone else. He cannot stop Boyer from talking to others and asking for the referral. And Gish cannot stop the nurse, or whoever, from giving the referral to Boyer. Gish has nothing to do with Boyer's acquirement of the referral....and the pill. He didn't want to have anything to do with it. Give me a link showing that I said that highlighted part! I said Dr Gish would actually be breaking his oath if he gave the referral to Boyer....knowing fully well that the doctor he's referring would actually commit what Gish believes could kill or be harmful! This is what I said: I hate to think this is your sly play with words, Kimmy. Either that or you truly have comprehension problems. Which is it?

So it's not recommended for routine use as a contraceptive. What has that got to do with providing it to rape victims in an emergency situation? Kimmy, the reason I posted those articles was because of this misleading comment you've made: It is not as harmless as what you want us to believe. Here:

So perhaps Dr Gish was trying to prevent these women from becoming addicted to emergency contraceptives? My response to that is Are you suggesting that Boyer was unjustified in asking for a treatment option she knew existed? Or are you claiming that Dr Gish's decision to refuse to provide access to this treatment was based on his expert medical opinion? Either way, the only response that deserves is I agree with August that you are "playing around" with our statements. You know perfectly well how the flow of discussion went....and why I stated those comments. I guess you do realize your reasons do not hold at all. There's lots of doctors who have screwed up in lots of different ways, but we are discussing "doctors beliefs can hinder patient care." -k You mean doctors' RELIGIOUS belief. A doctor doesn't have to be a practioner of any religion to have any belief. For doctors of Smith and Benoit, obviously they believe there's nothing wrong in what they did to their patients. They probably believe that keeping their patients content is good for their health. If religion was not the cause of Gish refusal, would it have this kind of response, I wonder. As I've said before, from Boyer's recollection of the event, the way Gish handled the situation was quite provocative. But then, you and I were not there to witness that incident in his office. Your argument regarding Boyer's case rests solely on Boyer's claims....which could either be true or an outright lie....or innacurate.

deleted.

Providing a patient with doses of drugs that threaten their well-being for non-medical reasons doesn't fall under any reasonable definition of treatment. -k But a lot of patients who end up abusing pain-killers started taking it for medical reasons. And some patients take on the role of knowing more than the doctor. They don't even have the courtesy of pretending to ask for the doctor's expert opinion......typical of Boyer's attitude, stating a demand: "I need morning-after pills!" So anyway, why is the outrage so focused on Gish and these bloody morning-after pill.....when some doctors break their oaths without any qualms that result in deaths and serious injuries?

"The most common side-effects of the morning-after pill are headache, nausea, painful breasts and irregular vaginal bleeding. One very important side-effect of the morning-after pill, or 'post-coital contraception', is pregnancy. This is more likely if you waited more than 24 hours after unprotected sex before seeking medical advice, or if sex took place more than once. Until fairly recently, the standard advice was that the morning-after pill could be taken up to 72 hours after sex, but recent research has shown a significant chance of the pill failing to prevent a pregnancy occurring if taken at this time. This is why doctors now advise that the morning-after pill should be given as soon as possible, preferably within 24 hours. If the morning-after pill doesn't work and a woman becomes pregnant unexpectedly, there appears to be no problems to the unborn baby - although it is not possible to give an absolute guarantee of this. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/birthcontro...ion/203294.html

"Canadian Physicians Group Warns of Dangers of "Morning After Pill"" OTTAWA, May 20, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Responding to Health Minister Pierre Pettigrew's announcement on May 18 that Health Canada will move forward with allowing the "morning after pill" (MAP) to be sold without a doctor's prescription, Dr. Will Johnston, president of Canadian Physicians for Life, expressed concern that such a move could endanger the health of Canadian women and girls and raise serious issues regarding informed consent. "The policy to make the 'morning after pill' available without a doctor's prescription puts women and girls at higher risk for disease and sexual health problems," said Dr. Johnston. The "morning after pill" (MAP) is a multiple dose of an oral contraceptive, levonorgestrel, which is found in the birth control pill. Manufacturers have reduced the hormone content of oral contraceptives due to serious side effects and health risks. "Now women are being encouraged to use these same pills, in multiple doses, as post-coital 'contraception,'" Dr. Johnston said. "The potential long-term impact of these high hormone doses, especially when used repeatedly, is worrisome and not being adequately addressed." The makers of the Plan-B MAP highlight on their website that it is "not recommended for routine use as a contraceptive." Yet there is no way to prevent misuse and abuse if readily available without a prescription. "Physical and clinical examinations by a physician are essential to good healthcare: to counsel patients on how to reliably avoid pregnancy, to determine sexually-transmitted diseases and abusive or coercive relationships, and to discuss health risks," said Dr. Johnston. "MAP does not protect against STDs and instead of preventing a pregnancy, may terminate it. Such serious issues cannot be adequately addressed at a pharmacist's counter." MAP can function in one of three ways: by preventing ovulation; by preventing fertilization; or if fertilization has already occurred, it may prevent the newly created human being from implanting in the uterus, thus aborting the unborn child. " The common description of the MAP as emergency contraception fails to accurately describe its possible abortifacient action and is misleading the public," Dr. Johnston said. "The confusion is aggravated by the current attempt to re-define pregnancy as occurring after implantation. It is a basic fact of human embryology that life begins at fertilization. Potential users of MAP must be told that this drug may abort a pregnancy so that they can make an informed decision. Will this message be communicated to them at the counter?" On May 6, the US Food and Drug Administration rejected a plan to make MAP available over the counter at American pharmacies, citing a concern that it might be unsafe for girls under 16. "Does the Health Minister not have similar concerns about our Canadian adolescents? We urge the Minister to put the health of Canadian women and girls before political ideology and commercial interests and reject any attempt to distribute this potentially harmful abortifacient in Canada without a doctor's prescription." http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04052005.html

How did he fail his ethical duty? If he did fail it, why is he not disciplined by the hospital or by the board? Especially when there are now two complainants and is highly publicized? As I've stated before, it seems Gish is anxious to prove a point! So? And so, he did! Well it depends on your definition of "care". Where in any of that does it says a doctor is required to give a referral for such things as morning-after pills? But that is misleading! Check posts #218 and 219 below. Who knows! A lot of people with askewed mentality floating around these days! So now, it's everybody's fault except Gish! BINGO! The same way it wouldn't be Gish's fault for trusting that the hospital had ensured that the patients' right to information is respected! That's why the hospital made the corrective measures in the end! I find that hard to believe, reading from some of the posts on this thread. Because he's a doctor, not a taxi driver. He swore an oath that includes a pledge to call in a colleague whenever he can't care for a patient himself. Baloney! The gist of his oath was: Saving lives. Do no harm. If he believes that providing a morning-after pill is doing somebody any harm, then it doesn't make any sense for him to call in a colleague to do the dirty deed instead. That's just like me hiring a killer to kill someone just so I don't get my hands "dirtied". That would really be breaking the oath, won't it? Knowing and believing that I am killing or harming someone by calling a colleague...and yet doing it anyway!

Would you say the same about a doctor who refused to provide, at your request, a lethal injection? Or lethal doses of steroids and painkillers....like the doctors of Benoit and Anna Nicole Smith!

If my own doctor treated me as Dr Gish treated these women, he'd be my "ex doctor" and my "ex friend," regardless of how long he'd been my doctor or how many laughs and jokes we'd shared. Good. At least you are not aversed to using your RIGHT TO CHOOSE! It is a valuable right and we should not take it for granted.

But he would have been lying. There was no law requiring him to inform her about emergency contraception. (That's the whole reason that the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act is currently being considered in the Pennsylvania legislature.) He didn't break any law by failing to mention emergency contraception. All he did was fail to fulfill his duty to his patient. That's all I've ever accused him of. And the undisputed facts say exactly that. So there is no law in Pennsylvania! Then he is definitely not obliged at all, is he? This makes your argument moot! Anyway, you seem to be ignoring this one very important part of my post regarding the Conscience Clause: As I've stated before, it seems Gish is anxious to prove a point! You're referring to a scientific explanation. We are talking about his religious belief that causes his own ethical dilemma. This is like science saying a fetus is just a blob of tissue, but his religious belief says it is a human being. I'm judging him on the fact that he hid information about emergency contraception from Tara Harnish, And we agreed on this case. Yeah, then he happens to refer her to a doctor he hardly knows and that doctor botched it up....then I bet the argument will be "Gish should not have referred her to a doctor he hardly knows! She placed her trust in Gish's referral of that doctor!" Besides, why should he be required to give referrals? The rest of your arguments is just the same old re-hash, and had already been answered in other posts.

The patients said Dr. Gish didn't provide the care. Dr. Gish admitted that he didn't provide the care (prescribing the morning after pill nor referring either woman to a doctor that would). The hospital, through the changes they made, admitted proper care wasn't provided.Really, it doesn't matter how slanted Boyer's part is. Of course it does matter. If you hadn't noticed, Kimmy and I agreed on the other case. We're arguing about Boyer's case! After all, it is the fodder you'd given us!

A little detail that makes no difference to the argument! Whether they were raped or not does not change the conditions of the Conscience Clause. Nowhere did it say in the Conscience Clause that only a raped patient have the right to medical information. So don't be so petty picking on the little details that changes nothing! Just wondering why you were telling me "but we were talking about the other woman, the rape victim!" when both of the women we were talking about were rape victims. It tends to add to the impression that you didn't actually read the articles. Why do you bring this petty thing up? It does not give a good impression of you, actually. I could easily and cockily counter: Well Kimmy, for someone who hadn't exactly read the articles, but rather skimmed and concentrated on the facts that really matter, I'd say I did a darn good job! Besides, as I've said before, you're harping on petty things since that information did not change anything from my arguments. BUT I do have a legitimate reason to question your comprehension of what you actually read. Because it definitely affects the facts of what we're actually discussing. While my lapse in reading petty information just make me look a bit sloppy....your incomprehension however, makes your argument/reasons highly questionable...for not only are they based on mere assumptions, they are also highly based on an inaccuracy. In fact, IF I follow your way of how you judge Gish, I'd say that just because I caught you red-handed of incomprehension and therefore, altering a crucial fact (see my post #194).....I therefore deem that all your arguments and reasons are more likely without any credibility!

I don't want to make this discussion go off track, but in a world of moral absolutism, how can you set a standard (that treating someone as an equal does not mean you have to condone the lifestyle) but then not extend that standard to other aspects of life? I don't have to condone the behaviour in order to treat him in any particular way as far as medical procedures are concerned. Can you explain what you mean in a world of moral absolutism. It seems to me that moral absolutism is a moral standard as opposed to moral relativism. I don't have to condone a bank robber's lifestyle to not descriminate against him in a medical procedure. What's the difference? Why can't I treat somebody one way without supporting his lifestyle or his behaviour?

Anyway, the more I read this article provided by Cybercoma, the Boyer part that is, the more slanted and questionable it seems to me! For those of you who want to be objective, re-read this Boyer part! I don't blame Gish for declining to comment on this article!

Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case. Excellent. Case closed. In that particular case. Just want it to be clear. So is the 20 year old less important? Why are you so intent on vigorously defending his treatment of the 35 year old and apparently have no concern over his treatment of the 20 year old? Because you're also judging him on the case of Boyer, based on the mistake he made with the 20 year old woman. You are saying: that just because a man admitted to raping a woman now, therefore he is also automatically guilty of having raped another woman who claimed of being raped by him 2 or 3 years ago. That therefore there is no doubt whatsoever, and he doesn't deserve a fair trial. Just look at your scary comment here: That's why we have due process of law! To prevent possible injustices by those with this kind of mentality. That is why we have to be careful of not accepting evidence of similar allegations in the past, lest people like you jump to conclusions.

Dr Gish already said that he won't prescribe emergency contraception and that he "has a problem with it." So melodramatic details aside, he's already confirmed her story. All this proved was that Gish had chosen to exercise his law-given right, and by being honest and frank about it. Boyer, in that article, had made it appear like Gish had been judgemental of her morals. The article seemed quite slanted to paint Gish in the role of being judgemental. All Gish did was give the reason for his refusal. His religion. Those are two separate cases. That he neglected to inform the 20 year-old does not necessarily mean he intended to withold information from Boyer. We do not know if he would've provided that information had she not mentioned it herself. You're not paying very close attention when you read these articles, are you. Ms Boyer claims that she asked him for emergency contraception *after* he said that he was finished his treatment. And you seem to have a problem comprehending what you actually read. Nowhere did it say in the article that she asked him for the pills *after* he said that he was finished with his treatment. In fact, here is the exact quote from the article regarding that part: He was just jotting some final notes into her chart when Boyer mentioned the pills! Nowhere did he say, "Bye-bye. We're over. Through. Finished! Out!" Since you're big on assumptions, let me just give you a possible alternative scenario HAD BOYER NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE PILLS AT ALL! My version: But of course, according to Boyer herself, she blurted about the morning pill as she was watching Gish writing down his note. That she jumped the gun, concluded and demanded that she needed those pills....obviously she was already informed. So of course we'll never know what could've happened if she did not volunteer that information. Note that she did not even ask this doctor for his medical opinion on those pills: "Dr Gish, what about the morning pills? Somebody mentioned them to me. " Boyer herself screwed up the possibility of proving the doctor's intent - that he had no intention of giving her the information. And that's what you're judging him with: his intent. But you've got nothing now but mere assumptions! Based on the questionable recollections, claims and motives of an allegedly raped woman who finally re-surfaced after 2 or 3 years of silence.

I'm sorry if I came across as being insensitive. I was not laughing at her rape. I was laughing at the way the article was written. Did we really need to know the details how the rape came about and what happened right after...along with that infamous line, "I'm done with you?" And yes, that line really got me! The word "soap" and cheesy B-movie scripts automatically came to mind. I'm not apologizing for thinking that! I couldn't help thinking that had it been me who was in the shoes of Boyer....I do not wish to have that humiliating part about the rape to be read by millions. After all, my complaint was about Gish's treatment of me. That was supposed to be the issue - the way Gish handled my exam. The incident happened two or three years ago. Can't it be said that I was raped and leave it at that....then proceed to the matter about Gish? Can't I just let it be said, just like the way the 20-year old rape victim did...that she was raped. No need for sordid details. If the attitude of Gish had affected me so profoundly that I avoided doctors for two years, worrying about "being judged" again....then why would I spill my guts about my rape in sordid details to be read by millions? Why should and why would I describe in details how I came to be raped? How at 35 years old I went home with this man trusting that all we'll do is talk. I don't have to give those details. The details of the rape has nothing to do with Gish. Shouldn't I be worried that I'd be judged by that? After all, don't rape victims usually suffer from the fear that people would judge their morals? That people will say, "oh, see? she asked for it." That's why a lot of rape victims refuse to come forward to file charges - because of this humiliation of giving details before the court. If I worry about doctors being judgemental just because Gish said giving morning-after pills is "against my religion" - to the point that I did not see any doctors for 2 years....then all the more I should be worried giving this writer all the details of my rape, and what people might think when they learned that I willingly went home with a man. Why would I open myself up like that to be judged? So that part doesn't compute. They don't jell. Somehow, there is a contradiction. I couldn't help but think the writer (with the approval of Boyer) may have embellished it. For a reason. Anyway, that's just an assumption.

It still remains that what we're reading about is only her version of that incident in Gish's office. And it now turns out, what we're arguing about is her version of an incident that had happened 2 or 3 years ago, at a time when she allegedly just got raped, and so understandably distraught. Now, I have more reasons to question the credibility....if not the accuracy of her account, given the time that had elapsde plus the state of mind she had when it happened. I also have reasons to question her motives. Those are two separate cases. That he neglected to inform the 20 year-old does not necessarily mean he intended to withold information from Boyer. We do not know if he would've provided that information had she not mentioned it herself. We do not even know exact what transpired or what was said in that office that day. We can assume as much as we like.....however, we cannot come to the right conclusion based solely on our assumptions. In order to conclude and judge him of guilt, you need proof. We are talking about the proof of intent! A little detail that makes no difference to the argument! Whether they were raped or not does not change the conditions of the Conscience Clause. Nowhere did it say in the Conscience Clause that only a raped patient have the right to medical information. So don't be so petty picking on the little details that changes nothing! Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case. Excellent. Case closed. In that particular case. Just want it to be clear. Your previous posts also conveniently dodge the fact that the Pennsylvania Conscience Clause only relieves a doctor from having to perform an abortion, and doesn't relieve him of his other responsibilities to his patient. Read the Conscience Clause I had posted. Maybe it will give you a hint why Gish is still around! The hospital is a building. The hospital didn't take the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges him to find someone else who can provide the care his patient needs if he can't provide it himself. This is called clutching at straws! Yes? What about that thing? You mean the oath of : Saving Lives. Do No Harm. Again, read CLRV's post and my post. That too, had been addressed. Read the Conscience Clause. And please, try to understand it. Who makes the decision? Kimmy says, I need a tonsillectomy. Dr Gish says, no you don't. Kimmy says, yes I do! Who should be followed? Kimmy or Dr Gish? Because, as you agreed above, he failed to meet his responsibilities to his patient. He shrugged his shoulders and said "not my department" and sent her out the door. -k OHHHH! You mean YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF YOUR ALLEGED passing-the-buck. Did he really shrugged his shoulders and said, "not my department." Mind you I wouldn't be surprised if that is how it was described. Did you read the first paragraph of the article given by Cybercoma? The part when Boyer was decribing what happened during and after the rape? Boy, I swear it sounded like a bad script from a cheesy god-awful B-movie. I particularly blinked at the part when the evil man said, "I'm done with you!" Maybe the rapist is a soap actor! Such dramatic lines!

Or busy training overseas! Golly, did I say training????....I mean busy touring overseas Betty you are in on it too. Believe me I know CIA when I see them. NSA, Rue. NSA. Oh now that you've mentioned it. Yes! You're right! I'll just add that info to his dosier, thank you very much. The usual suspects had kept me really distracted so I failed to notice that about JBG. Or is it? Aha! This could be an elaborate trick! I'm familiar with James Bond too, you know. And I have seen Charlie's Angels too! I'll let you in on it. That fish was not really a fish...well, not exactly, that is. It was gene-spliced with a bomb. Don't ask me how, because that's highly classified. Even I don't have access to that sensitive information. That fish-bomb was created by a scientist named Abdullah Buradeen Fasad Donair al-Falafel. We have unveiled an elaborate plot made up of several scientists working in various fields in western countries. It was supposed to go back-to-back with the recently botched job by the doctors. Luckily, the fish was a dud.

No. I did not conveniently forget about the first woman. Read my statement above! I said: "Just because the woman was the one who first brought it up doesn't necessarily conclude that he was not going to mention it, especially when there was already a previous incident." Granted that Gish did not give the information to the 20-year old woman, I am saying, ESPECIALLY because of that previous incident with the 20 year old woman, it is highly possible that Gish has no intention of withholding this same information to this raped woman! That this raped woman had beaten Gish into mentioning it first is not proof! You are judging him based on that previous incident, when in fact it is also equally possible that he had learned from that incident and have no intention of repeating the same mistake! I don't know anymore than you do what his real intention was. You are making assumptions on his intentions! And judging him now based on that mere assumption! So? What does this prove? That he had failed to give medical information to the 20-year old. But we're not arguing about that! We're arguing about his intention on this other one - the raped woman! Of course! I'm only throwing you some possible indications that might help you prove his guilt! ANYTHING that might help your argument! An apology is one indication....and there was no apology, I assume? So we scratch off "apology" from that list of possible proofs that you may have to assist your argument! The undisputed facts of the case prove he failed to meet his responsibility to his patient. Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case. If you mean the second patient - the raped one - then the answer is: no, it is not a fact at all! And it is very much disputed. As a matter of fact, we could say it is undisputedly mere assumptions - on your part. That's all it is! While the hospital could have prevented this all by having an adequate policy in place, that doesn't alter the fact that as a doctor, Dr Gish has ethical an ethical responsibility to each patient he treats. There's no passing the buck. The doctor has a duty to his patient. Whether the hospital should have done things differently (and obviously they should have) doesn't relieve Gish of that duty. But he passed the buck. The Hippocratic Oath says that if he needs help to treat a patient, he will not fail to get help. He failed to get help. Back to circling again! Not only did you misunderstood the Conscience Clause, but you still insist on your off-key logic. Your flawed logic was already pointed out to you. Refer to my previous posts! You hit the nail right on the head actually with your own statement - the only problem is, you don't realize it! Here it is ! You are right! As you accurately pointed out above: "There is no passing the buck." The hospital acknolwedged its mistake by admitting its standard was not acceptable, and that therefore, they are going to correct that problem - to make it acceptable! How hard is that to grasp for logic? Anyway, how did Gish "pass the buck" when according to the article, he did not give any statements??? How on earth did you manage to come up with this conclusion? They did not say they've reprimanded or had disciplined Gish! Nothing of the kind at all! They did not pass the buck to Gish! The hospital owners are going to correct their own mistake or negligence! Your logic is way off-key! I am surprised actually that this would come from you, Kimmy...and that you would insist on this flawed logic. As for the rest of your post...they've already been addressed. Refer to my previous posts.