Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.
Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.
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?
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.
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.