Moral issues aside, if Jessi was concerned about the morality of birth control that acted post-fertilization, it was Jessi's responsibility to insist on knowing what the exact contraceptive mechanism is.
A paradigm that requires a doctor to inform the patient of every possible factor that has a non-zero chance of influencing a patient's decision would lead to information overload. There are just too many things that a person might want to know if the person feels any given way about any given issue, and throwing all those facts at a patient, especially a weak-willed and vulnerable patient, is counterproductive.
This is where it really does become an issue that the AMA changed the definition of contraception to call the pill a contraceptive. This is not a peripheral concern, but a major belief held by a large amount of people. Also, you do not address the issue that the doctor refused my request for information on alternatives. Why weren't all my options for birth control discussed
( ... )
I won't dispute that life beginning at conception is a belief held by a large fraction of the population. It does not follow that all people who hold that belief follow it to the logical conclusion. It's extremely rare, even among fundamentalists, that religious (and even non-religious) people follow their core beliefs to their logical conclusion
( ... )
Did the polls you mention explain the science? Did the people taking the poll understand it? There is a growing group of people that believe that hormonal birth control is wrong, because a growing amount of people are learning what really happens
( ... )
Tom stated to that the polls dealt with whether potentially decreasing the likelihood of implantation of a fertilized egg was immoral. I thought that was the science that you were speaking of.
As for your doctor, if you're uncomfortable with him/her, you should definitely seek a different one.
Can you honestly think of another issue that people see as a life or death issue but are not informed about?Yes I can. Doctors almost never discuss issues related to life support should a complication arise during the surgery. The practice in every major hospital in this country is to ignore the issue until it comes up, put the patient on life support, and deal with the moral issues after disaster arises. Patients are completely on their own and completely uninformed as to what the procedure would entail
( ... )
Notice that, in the issue you give, doctors choose on the side of life without knowing the patients' feelings. The issue here is that the drug is labelled as a particular thing which means something different than most patients think it would mean. The patient, in general, does not realize that they may have a moral objection because of this. How, then, are patients supposed to become aware that a possible moral objection exests
( ... )
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Moral issues aside, if Jessi was concerned about the morality of birth control that acted post-fertilization, it was Jessi's responsibility to insist on knowing what the exact contraceptive mechanism is.
A paradigm that requires a doctor to inform the patient of every possible factor that has a non-zero chance of influencing a patient's decision would lead to information overload. There are just too many things that a person might want to know if the person feels any given way about any given issue, and throwing all those facts at a patient, especially a weak-willed and vulnerable patient, is counterproductive.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
As for your doctor, if you're uncomfortable with him/her, you should definitely seek a different one.
Reply
But the fact remains that this is standard in medical care.
The word "potentially" is a lot different from "definitely."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment