I need feminism because...

nesf wrote: »

Inductive, thanks for asking.

:rolleyes:

I don't really care what you call it. Are you seriously saying the way to reduce STIs is to prevent access to oral contraceptives?

Morag wrote: »

Yes if a woman is going to be sexually active and goes to her dr to talk about the pill then that consultation should include, smear tests, sti tests and safer sex practices.

But that doesn't seem to be the type consultation which the author wrote about at all, those topics weren't raised the Dr seemed to not want to prescribe the pill to her as she was not in a relationship, that is not good enough imho.

I agree it's unacceptable to refuse the pill solely because a woman is single.

Nesf you're backtracking now and making another argument because you got caught out on your first point, which was just trying to throw a spanner in the works.

This was a repeat prescription. This girl wasn't looking for a consultation or an STI screen. He is her family GP, not her gyno, not her college clinic doctor. She would have already discussed her contraceptive options and safe sex practices with them before she got her first prescription.

That post is not about safe sex practice, nowhere did Morag or iwantmydinner dispute safe sex practices. Where did the original author say she has unprotected sex? Where does she say she has STI's and doesn't care about spreading them? This doctor didn't ask if she was using condoms or not.

This is about a doctor who won't let an adult female make a choice about her sexuality based on HIS OWN religious views. He should be stripped of his licence. What he did is in unethical and against the medical code of conduct.

Speaking of safe sex practice & STIs, doctors used to only prescribe condoms to married people. Progressive. Safe too. Really responsible... :rolleyes:

Guys, I'm stepping back from this because it's quite heated and as a CMod I shouldn't be causing potential hassle for the mods. Sorry for those who were looking forward to ripping my future posts apart.

I get what Nesf is getting at, but he's being incredibly confrontational in saying it. I actually don't think he's at odds with anything Catari Jaguar is saying except when it comes to prescriptions. For a doctor to prescribe something they can't rely on any other doctor's statement, unless they've done everything they can to investigate what that doctor is saying.

A GP can't rely on another GP who says, "I prescribed X, she's grand, prescribe it again." When a doctor prescribes something that's a huge indicator of their medical opinion. They are justifying all the downsides of the medication for the benefit of the medication in the case of the patient. When a doctor prescribes the pill they should be sure that the patient isn't relying on it for STI protection and that they're aware it isn't 100% effective.

That isn't what I took from the thread here, but I do get what NESF was saying (at least I hope so.) I think he said it in a pretty awful way though, and it didn't really have a place here.

Lyaiera wrote: »

I get what Nesf is getting at, but he's being incredibly confrontational in saying it. I actually don't think he's at odds with anything Catari Jaguar is saying except when it comes to prescriptions. For a doctor to prescribe something they can't rely on any other doctor's statement, unless they've done everything they can to investigate what that doctor is saying.

A GP can't rely on another GP who says, "I prescribed X, she's grand, prescribe it again." When a doctor prescribes something that's a huge indicator of their medical opinion. They are justifying all the downsides of the medication for the benefit of the medication in the case of the patient. When a doctor prescribes the pill they should be sure that the patient isn't relying on it for STI protection and that they're aware it isn't 100% effective.

That isn't what I took from the thread here, but I do get what NESF was saying (at least I hope so.) I think he said it in a pretty awful way though, and it didn't really have a place here.

I'm baffled as to why, given the account of what this doctor actually said, anyone thinks that his behaviour was defensible in any way.

This doctor asked the poster if she had a boyfriend - completely unacceptable and none of his business - and, to quote the article: "He then went on to declare that “co habiting” (he made little quotation marks with his hands) couples had a higher rate of break ups than married couples. He also threw in the fact that ‘fellas’ often experience so much they don’t know what to settle for." WTF does that have to do with whether she's taking the pill or not?

It also has nothing to do with "screening" a patient for their knowledge of the risks associated with not using condoms. It is ludicrous to suggest that his behaviour was motivated by a desire to protect his patient from contracting an STI. Even if it had been, all he had to do was explain "This will only protect you against pregnancy, not STIs". Simple.

He then attacked the poster for being pro-choice - again, a disgraceful thing for a doctor to do. He has absolutely no right to tell a patient that her personal views about abortion are "outdated and immature" (the fúck?).

If he had a policy of not prescribing contraception because it contradicted his own personal morality, he could just have said so, rather than nosing around in the poster's personal life.

Similarly if he asked the medically relevant questions (do you smoke, any history of high blood pressure etc) all would have been well, though as her family GP one would assume he already had a medical history for her. I'm sure if he'd said "I'd like to check your blood pressure before I can prescribe this" nobody could reasonably object to that.

This doctor did neither, it's clear from what the poster decribes that he felt it was immoral for her to be having sex outside of marriage and that this was the reason he refused to prescribe the pill. And while he is within his rights to refuse something that goes against his conscience he is not within his rights to fail to refer the patient to another doctor who will provide the pill. The fact that he didn't do that is a further black mark against him.

The evidence is right there in the article, there's absolutely no need to try to defend this doctor on the grounds that some other people don't understand safe sex.

10/10 for mansplaining though, nesf.

Morag wrote: »

Nah I think it's more Nesf seeing that him continuing to debate the topic is a conflict due to the fact he is a defacto mod for this forum as he is a Soc Cat mod.

Some threads are more sharing and discussing and some are more the cut and thrust of debate, I see that as him bowing out graceful as sometimes discretion is the better part of honor and you slight him with that assumption in my opinion. I also think it's unfair to post addressing him and having a go when he's said he's quit the discussion.

I think he was wrong to say what he said and as a mod I would have expected him to have known better; however once he'd stated his views why should we allow them to go unchallenged just because he decided he could not continue the debate?

Morag wrote: »

I think the TLL would be the ones to best make that call.

Aren't we the tLL?

fits wrote: »

That's interesting. Because I think theres a lot wrong with the medication too and that its way overprescribed and other options are not explored enough.

I totally agree with you on that. It's just that in this case, that clearly wasn't the doctors motivation.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I would agree if it wasn't for the following:

People should be able to respond re how uncalled for and deliberately inflammatory that comment is. I'd suspect it was written because Catari Jaguar wrote such a good post and that person had no comeback.

not the only comment that could be described that way, imho his whole attitude was pretty aggressive and nasty from the start

like honestly if he wasn't a cmod i'd have been reporting his posts for trolling

But if you report a Cmod who sees the report? I'm not really up on how that works. Like do all the mods see it?

Edit: I guess I assume that if a mod or cmod says it, it's kind of officially "okay with boards" but god knows I've had mod warnings for far less than what nesf was doing.

Back on topic, please

^^ Vomit.

In other words, "She's had sex at least once before, so, you know, that means she must be some sort of no-consent-needed slut."