Wow. I don't know how I feel about people from Utah pouring so much effort into an election in California. On one hand, it seems very wrong to forbid them, but on the other hand it seems to erode states rights.

What defines support for states rights and free markets over socialism appears to be a flexible concept these days.

Yuck, this is why I have a problem with gay marriage being on the ballot

I like the "We're all socialists now" story. The truth is that a lot of Republicans currently in power subscribe to some socialist ideas. I certainly don't like it.

Steph, I'm confused by your statement, could you clarify?

Yay Team Hillary!!

Why should we force a doctor or nurse to do something they don't want too? No one is going to die if they have to pick up the phone and find a different doctor to sterilize them. Or prescribe them birth control. And this is all hypothetical anyway. Who knows how many doctors will all the sudden stop prescribing bc? The spearhead of this talks about fearmongering coming from the other side, but that is all this is, plain and simple.

Are doctors who don't give birth control out really very common? I'm genuinely curious, if anyone can tell me.

I can tell you doctors that won't sterilize those who ask are very common. And maybe it's not a hassle to call around to different places if you live in an urban area, but if you live in a more rural area you may have to go well out of your way to find a doctor who will treat you.

Oh I know that torg. I have a friend who tried to get sterilized at 22. Most doctors won't do them at that age. And I respect that. And about rural, I know rural. There aren't many doctors here anyway. Most of the time you have to drive to the nearest big town for anything. It is just fearmongering. I think anyone who doesn't see that is lying to themselves.

But what about birth control? Is it really so common to be denied it? HAs it happened to anyone here?

Exactly Vespa, that is what I was saying.

I definitely DO NOT respect a doctor that doesn't respect my right to make reproductive choices for myself. If I'm old enough to make the permanently life changing decision to have a baby, I'm old enough to make the permanently life changing decision to be sterilized.

Torg, I can see why that would make you upset. But I don't think access to birth control (i.e. pills) is the same as being denied sterilization.

Torg, I agree you have the right to do what you want with your own body. But I do not think a doctor should be forced to do something they don't want to do. That's just not ethically justifiable.

But what objection could a doctor reasonably give to deny me? IS me being sterilized against his morals? Is it against his religion for me not to have kids?

And vespa, I hate to be that person, but you were looking for "e.g." there, not "i.e." (Sorry, I've been on a Latin kick lately.)

I had friends in college who couldn't get the morning after pill subscribed by their doctors because the doctors had moral objections to it. The friend who went to school closer to the city, got lucky. She had a Planned Parenthood nearby. The friend that went to school with me in the burbs, not so lucky. It took her so long to find a doctor to prescribe it, that she nearly missed her window to take it. Which I guess only means that we need to get a Planned Parenthood in this area of MA.

I have no problem with doctors refusing to perform surgery, like abortions or sterilization (liability issues). I do have a problem with doctors and pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control. There is a huge difference between surgery and a commonly used medication. A doctors place is not make ethical decisions for a patient, it is to present them with medical information and help the patient do what is best for their health.

I generally find that once someone starts pointing out spelling errors it's because they have no argument.

I think the real problem is that doctors have a monopoly on prescribing medication. I think people ought to be able to make their own medical decisions.

Well, first, it was a grammatical error. One translates basically to "in other words," and the other to "for example." It would be hard to misspell "i.e."

Second, I have an argument, and it is this: if you don't want to treat patients in the way that is best for them, then do not become a doctor.

Torg, the problem with that is that it's usually left up to the doctor to decide what's best for a patient. I mean, if a patient wanted a prescription to oxycontin, and the doctor didn't think it was a good idea, would you say the doctor was denying that person's rights to make their own medical decisions?

(I actually would, I just wonder how that factors into your opinions on BC)

I wouldn't compare my desire to have permanent birth control to someone's desire to take painkillers he didn't need. I suppose the difference is that my decision will not do me any medical harm.

Torg, the way I see it, most of these doctors are older. They have more life experience than our age group (I think we are close in age) and with that age comes that, "Oh silly kids, I know better" mentality. I find myself doing it with teens. This doesn't make it right, but it just is. They think that if you are older you can make this decision without any regrets. I agree that you know what you want better than anyone. That is just the mindset that I can imagine for these docs. I have also heard that some docs malpractice insurance won't cover the operation on someone under 25 without children. If that's the case, the docs hands are tied. But, like I said before, NO ONE should be FORCED to do something they don't want to do. This is a free country.

Just like you have the right to want it, they have the right to refuse it, so you move to the next doctor.

Also, what are the stats on docs not prescribing bc. I have a feeling that the only even remotely common gripe would be them not prescribing emergency bc.

whoops, forgot the ?

But Torg, what I'm saying is that the doctor gets to decide what you "need" in all other cases. For example, if somebody is depressed, it's up to the doctor to decide if they "need" a medication. A patient doesn't really get to make their own medical decisions about anything.

I have really only heard complaints about emergency contraception.

Is EC available without a prescription every where? I know that's the case in some states.

Exactly kas like the morning after pill.

GS, I'm curious. How would you feel about a doctor that refused to treat someone for infertility? I'm not trying to be challenging, just curious.

In my state, you need a prescription.

I thought it was a state thing. I know it is recommended to just have your doctor write a prescription for EC so you have it to be filled if you ever need it.

But only if you can also find a pharmacist happy to fill your prescription.

Exactly what if the pharmacist doesn't agree with it? Or the drug manufacturer? Or the store it's being sold in? Somewhere you have to draw the line. AND with emergency contraception there is a definite time limit so you might not necessarily have the time to shop around.

EC is a different thing, because of the timing I guess. It's a good idea for women to have the prescription in advance, then. I think in California you can get it from a pharmacy without a prescription, but I don't know where else.

And yes, you need to find a pharmacist to fill it, but again, is that really hard, or are there a few stories that are getting blown out of proportion?

Sigh. There's nobody else here who thinks you ought to be able to decide for yourself what medications you want to put into your body?

Mich, this is another area where I feel conflicted, as we discussed on the other post. It would be great if everyone got to just decide what drugs to use. But I think all drugs being legalized without prescriptions would lead to a large increase in drug abuse and would have negative consequences for a lot of people.

Mich, I think that is a good idea. But what about your previous example of oxycontin? Should I be allowed to put that in my body just because I want to? Does this ideology extend to illegal substances?

Kast, yes you should be able to take oxycontin. And yes, my ideology does extend to illicit drugs.

Yes, I think her point is that as long as you're not hurting anyone, why should anyone tell you what you can or can't put in your body?

Torg, it might have some negative consequences, but I think the benefits would majorly outweigh the negatives. Especially when you consider that people would have their liberty back.

Kinda off topic but kinda on, there is going to be a ballot question on Nov. 4th in MA about decriminalizing marijuana if under an ounce is being carried.

That's cool. Are you in MA?

Michelin, doctors can refuse to write a prescription for oxycontin if they feel there is a MEDICAL reason to refuse it. In the case of BC, it would usually be a moral reason.

Yup. Obviously, I'm voting for it. There are also questions about eliminating state income tax and prohibiting gambling on dog races.

The point is that doctors can refuse to prescribe things for pretty much any reason they please. They get to tell you what's best for you.

Good for you, Kast! Let's hope the rest of your state makes the right decision, too.

It will be interesting to see how all these questions do, considering the presidential election will mean a high turn out. (No pun intended;))