If there was ever a good argument for the Obama Administration’s expected reversal of several idiotic Bush policies like the new healthcare practicioners’ “conscience” rule, it’s this story out of New Mexico.
A woman is suing a nurse who, even before the Bush rule came into effect, apparently felt she was well within her conscience rights to remove the woman’s IUD without her request or consent — because Nursie is opposed to abortion and in that dried-up little acorn rattling around in her cranium, IUDs are “abortion”. Taste the bugfuck insanity:
This kind of situation has been much-discussed as a potential outcome of the new HHS rule to go into effect on Monday, January 19th. But possibility and reality have already collided head-on in the story of a New Mexico woman whose IUD was removed by a nurse against the woman’s wishes and who is now suing both the nurse and the center in federal court for battery, constitutional violations and negligence.
The patient went to the Presbyterian Health Services Rio Rancho Family Health Center in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, and saw nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona. Her request: Simply to shorten the strings on her IUD for greater comfort.
The result? Nurse Olona took it upon herself to remove the troublesome device. Why? Simple, Nurse Olona told her patient:
“Having the IUD come out was a good thing [because] I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. …What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus.”
Given that the patient would have made clear the reason for the appointment when she was booking it, one would think that anyone so vehemently opposed to contraception would have opted out of this particular task. But there’s no doubt that a lot of these nitwits purposely put themselves in the situation just so they can harass patients and enjoy a little self-righteousness high, and so-called “conscience rules” just encourage them.
This is where it goes with these whackos. I don’t care if some health care workers want to opt out of certain procedures for whatever reason (as long as there’s someone else around to pick up the slack). They’re welcome to let their conscience be their guide as long as they’re not letting their conscience be my guide, too.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
unrepentant old hippie 
I am mostly with you JJ, but I do take exception with health care workers who want to opt out of certain procedures for whatever reason. The job is to provide medical services, not providing that service should mean no job.
Pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescriptions that they have ‘moral’ objections to can and should be replaced with vending machines.
Doctors who give woo-woo religious boojum priority over accepted medical practice should be relieved of their legal right to practice medicine. Dangerous quacks taking advice from their invisible friends are not an essential part of any medical practice.
And nurses like the one in the article should never be allowed into a hospital again, except for palliative care.
As with most of these sorts of problems, there is nothing going on here that could not be sorted out with a bucket of Prozak and a croquet mallet.
Cheers,
Naked Ape
I’m with Naked Ape on this one JJ. It is not the place of those that choose to work in a profession to place their personal ethics over that of their profession and the requirements of that profession, which in the case of medical workers and pharmacists is to provide appropriate medical services and to fill prescriptions as required by medical professionals, not to substitute their personal consciences in place of professional services/instructions/requirements. This nurse is asking for malpractice by her actions, she had ZERO business placing her personal feelings ahead of all other considerations, at the very most if she felt so strongly she should have recused herself instead of taking such action. I have a real issue with this sort of conduct, it is unprofessional, and those that train for the medical fields know what will be required of them, and if they cannot do these things they either should not go into the profession or go into a field where they will not run into possible conflict between their personal views and their professional obligations. Yet too often these medical people go out of their way to put themselves into positions where they can place their personal views ahead of their professional obligations, and those people should not only be fired but have their professional licenses revoked as well IMHO.
I read about this a couple of days ago. After I sat there for a while blinking, I thought: She should be charged with assault. And fired. And have her license lifted. Then the woman she assaulted should sue her ass for every penny she’s got.
Wow… It’s (almost) unbelievable!
I sure hope this nurse gets what’s coming to her – which SHOULD be jail time!
This particular nurse should — and, hopefully, will — be subjected to severe disciplinary action.
A doctor’s right to refuse to perform a procedure they deem unethical unequivocally does not translate into another medical professional’s right to unilaterally terminate a procedure already under way.
But on that particular note, JJ, you really don’t have any problem with your conscience being someone else’s guide, now do you?
Patrick, I don’t see where JJ is imposing her conscience as anyone else’s guide. I see you imposing an incorrect interpretation on what she’s written though.
Naked Ape – I should have been a little more specific.
I am no friend of religion, and it irks me to have to condone someone bringing their religion to work with them, but in the interest of fairness in some cases I can see it being acceptable.
I don’t care if Catholic hospitals opt out of doing abortions. There are usually other hospitals around to pick up the slack.
As for individuals working in a medical clinic that provides gynecological care among other services, the time to opt out is their first interview. If the clinic still wants to hire such a person and keep them away from ob-gyn work, then that’s fine with me. However, if the clinic specializes in ob-gyn, obviously such people shouldn’t even be hired in the first place. If they are hired because they neglect to reveal that they won’t do all ob-gyn procedures, then that person has lost their opportunity to opt out and should be fired if they try to do it at the 11th hour.
It seems pretty straightforward — if you don’t want to be confronted with contraception or abortion, don’t take a job where those things are done. Unfortunately I believe a lot of these people purposely put themselves in the position of having to do procedures they don’t agree with, just so they can invoke these “conscience rules” and give the patient a hard time.
Oh, that’s our Twatsy. Deliberately dense, as always.
Scotian – As I said above, I should have been a little more specific.
I don’t think it’s okay for someone who was hired specifically to do ob-gyn procedures to suddenly opt out of certain ones. But in fairness to religious people (gag) who might be okay in other aspects of medical practice, in *principle* I don’t have a problem with them opting out of certain procedures as long as they’re upfront about it. They can either (a) Take a job at a Catholic hospital where their POV is business as usual, or (b) Make it clear to their employers right upfront that they won’t do certain procedures, so they can be assigned something else (cleaning the bathroom comes to mind), or not hired in the first place.
Same goes for pharmacists — either take a job at a drugstore that clearly advertises “NO CONTRACEPTIVES” (probably a private business, not a chain store), or go into some other line of work. Dispensing drugs is a pharmacist’s job, they’re not allowed to decide *which* drugs.
This is why I disagree with conscience rules, because if everyone’s upfront about not wanting to do this or that procedure, there should be no need for conscience rules. Conscience rules only allow health care workers to abuse patients by refusing them service at the last minute.
As for the nurse in this story, this wasn’t even the first time she ever did this, just the first time someone took her to court for it. She should be fired, her license pulled, charged with assault and probably given an asskicking by the patient as well.
fern hill – And this wasn’t even the first time she’s done it! It was a running joke at the clinic that this idiot kept pulling out womens’ IUDs.
I hope the clinic is also sued for negligence in this. They obviously knew she was doing it — WTF?? But at least the “nurse” should be fired, have her license pulled and get her ass sued off.
Joe – She should definitely be convicted of assault, sued, fired and have her license pulled so she can go into some other line of work where she doesn’t get to abuse patients. What an unbelievable asshole!
Patrick – never mind.
brebis – Misrepresentation = Standard Operating Procedure for Twatsy.
JAB –
Some things never change.
Deliberately dense?
Hardly. I’m just pointing out the irony of someone opposing any kind of protection for a doctor’s right to choose while promoting an agenda taht would make such protection necessary, but unattainable.
It seems the “pro-choice” lobby isn’t quite so pro-choice after all.
ps – There’s no question the nurse in this particular case is unequivocally wrong. The discipline carried out against her should start with firing, move up to reovoking her nursing license, and conclude with assault charges — provided that the victim in this case presses such charges.
Shorter Twatrick: SSDD.
“Defendant Olona stated, ‘Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it’s not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'”
ALWAYS?
She’s done this before?
She’s done this before!
Add the charge of rape to that charge of assault and throw her in solitary before any of her former victims get hold of her in a public place. Then drop the key off at a nearby location and go for lunch. Make it a long lunch. Act very surprised when you get back and find that the cell has been redecorated in your absence.
Chimera – Yeah, don’t you love that “They accidentally come out”? Right. Maybe that’s because you’re yanking on them like you’re starting a lawn mower?
A few years ago I removed my own IUD (it wasn’t fitted right and it was killing me, and being a do-it-yourselfer by nature, well…). I can tell you that they don’t “accidentally come out” when you “tug”. They are really hard to pull out and excruciatingly painful while it’s happening.
This woman is a sick fuck.
Patrick, go blogwhore somewhere else.
JJ, what is that gawd awful smell?
Did you leave the back door open? I think the cat’s dragged something in…
So then you aren’t going to address your dishonesty in regard to this issue, JJ?
PR – There’s nothing dishonest about thinking it might be a good idea to enshrine rights when those rights are under attack. No attack, no enshrinement necessary. No hypocrisy or dishonesty there. You are the one who’s being dishonest by deliberate misrepresentation.
Seriously, I used to give you the benefit of doubt that you wanted to make some kind of honest point, but I’ve come to the conclusion (took me long enough) that you just enjoy trolling and starting foolish arguments over nothing. Sorry, I’m not playing.
Go troll somewhere else until you grow up a little.
If we extended conscience clause legislation to other industries, such as the cattle industry, or forestry or energy, I don’t think we would be having this discussion. But since the impetus behind conscience legislation is from the pro-life lobby, and it involves controlling women’s bodies, it is thrust upon us as a reasonable debate.
“There’s nothing dishonest about thinking it might be a good idea to enshrine rights when those rights are under attack. No attack, no enshrinement necessary.”
Unless, of course, your “enshrinement” is an attack on someone else’s rights — the right of a doctor to decline to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical.
“You are the one who’s being dishonest by deliberate misrepresentation.”
Listen, JJ. You’re the one who thought it was a fantastic idea to enshrine the right to an abortion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Either you’re deliberately overlooking the consequences of such an action, or you don’t understand how the Charter works.
But considering that you’re in favour of a course of action that would allow women to litigate against a doctor who refused to peform an abortion, no matter the reason. You can’t argue that legal protection for a doctor’s right to choose isn’t necessary. Not anymore. Not when your own agenda makes it necessary.
“I used to give you the benefit of doubt that you wanted to make some kind of honest point, but I’ve come to the conclusion (took me long enough) that you just enjoy trolling and starting foolish arguments over nothing.”
You’re an idiot.
You think this is over nothing? You’re the one who has insisted to high heaven that no legislative protection for a doctor’s right to refuse to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical.
You said that.
Then you advocated a course of action that would strip them of the ability to do so without having to experience a legal reprisal.
You said that.
Now you don’t want to debate any more because you got caught being dishonest.
You say over and over again that you don’t want a debate on abortion because the “other side” isn’t capable of being rational or honest about it.
Instead, here we find you being neither honest nor rational. And you think that suddenly you get to say “OK, we aren’t playing anymore?” Just because it’s pretty obvious that you’re going to lose?
No. I’m going to keep pushing you on this. If you don’t like it, pull another page out of the intellectual cowardice playbook, just like you did the last time you tried to argue a case you couldn’t win.
If we extended conscience clause legislation to other industries, such as the cattle industry, or forestry or energy, I don’t think we would be having this discussion. But since the impetus behind conscience legislation is from the pro-life lobby, and it involves controlling women’s bodies, it is thrust upon us as a reasonable debate.
Worth restating. That certainly is the nub of the issue Calgal. I’ve seen way too many cries about reasonable debate and they all centre on women’s reproductive rights.
Patrick Ross, the bizarro world Dale Carnegie. 😉
Patrick – Well actually, I’ve never “advocated” for any such thing – I once responded positively to an idea tabled by another blogger in the comments here, which is hardly “advocacy”. I’ve never even done a post about it. That’s advocacy? Uh, no.
You really are a textbook case of bad-faith debate. If you ever want to be taken seriously as a blogger, you need to cut that out. There’s lots to debate without making shit up.
Now fuck off, I’ve had enough of your bullshit.
FF – I hope he enjoys spam purgatory.
This is the second or third time I’ve had to ban his ass for arguing like a fucking cretin, and I keep letting him come back, but this is the last time. I’ve got no time for his pedantic drivel where he goes on and on insisting I’ve said this word or said that word and thinks he’s got some kind of “gotcha”. Please! Get a life!
Asshole.
Unless the rest of you want him to stay… should I take a vote?
calgal
For sure. Imagine a vegetarian waitress refusing to serve a steak to a customer at the Keg because she’s morally opposed to meat?
The obvious solution is for veggie-girl to get a job at a vegetarian restaurant rather than one that serves meat. Or failing that, to tell her employer up front that she won’t serve meat, and if they still want to hire her, maybe they can let her work the dishpit instead of working as a server. No conscience rule required.
beijing –
Yeah, there’s nothing that gives me the warm fuzzies like a bunch of total fucking strangers wanting to discuss how they can curtail My Rights.
Unless the rest of you want him to stay… should I take a vote?
As my colleague, Dr. Prole would say, “Your beach, your wave.”
Well, he’s toast, then.
No one is suggesting that doctors be forced to perform abortions, except for hysterical anti-choice people. It is ridiculous to imagine a scenario where a doctor would be forced to do so, and really, what woman would want to entrust someone like that anyway.
Most doctors refer women to abortion clinics, because most doctors are not trained and able to perform an abortion. And guess what? Women don’t need a formal referral for an abortion anyway. Hospitals and clinics across the country have for years allowed women to book an appointment themselves. However, doctors do need to refer women to places where they can get accurate information. Is this too much to ask of a healthcare professional? (This doesn’t include your neighbourhood Pregnancy (S)Care Center.) Fear that a woman might choose to have an abortion based on accurate information about all her options, is not a good enough reason to a)not give her the information yourself or b)tell her where she can find what she needs to know.
Another thing about conscience legislation – it would make it illegal not to hire a healthcare professional on the grounds that the candidate was anti-choice. Employers wouldn’t even be able to ask. So anti-choice healthcare workers could place themselves in any ob-gyn setting and perversely dispense their junk science, fear tactics, and religion. You still probably couldn’t get away with accidently pulling out IUDs though.
If some nurse removed my IUD just ‘cuz she didn’t like it, she’d be taking me to court – for assault. I’d put that bitch in a headlock and beat her fucking face in right there in the exam room while I still had my paper gown on. And you can take that to the bank. Heh, and I’m a pacifist…
JJ:
I read and reread what PR wrote when he claimed you were trying to eat your cake and have it, and honestly I can’t even understand his argument. Specifically this:
“You think this is over nothing? You’re the one who has insisted to high heaven that no legislative protection for a doctor’s right to refuse to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical.
You said that.
Then you advocated a course of action that would strip them of the ability to do so without having to experience a legal reprisal.
You said that.
Now you don’t want to debate any more because you got caught being dishonest.”
His second sentence in what I quoted makes no sense to me, it looks like he forgot a word or two, perhaps at the end of the sentence the words “is necessary” maybe? That is what I would guess going by the context but I can’t be sure that was what he meant. Assuming that was what he meant then he appears to be saying in that sentence that you argue there is no need for legal protection to allow Doctors to impose their personal values/ethics (not professional ethics, that is not what is being discussed/applied whenever one refuses to perform an abortion based on religious/personal views, that is something else and that is protected) over following accepted medical practice/procedures that conflict with that personal value system. Then he says you are trying to have it both ways by claiming you are advocating stripping away the right to impose their moral values without a legal process to force them to abandon this “right”.
Now, I’ve been following your arguments on this for a while now, and all I have seen from you is that you do not believe they should have the right to refuse a treatment on a case by case basis, that instead they must declare to their employer when being hired that certain practices conflict with their personal choices and either find an employer willing to accept that or to work in another field of medicine or not at all, and that to fail to disclose at the outset would be grounds for termination (or worse depending on how they did this) the first time they imposed their private values upon a patient/client. I see absolutely no conflict there myself.
If he meant something else in his first couple of quoted sentences then he has himself to blame for his meaning not being understood, but personally I suspect he is arguing in bad faith, I have watched him do so at several blogs over the last couple of years since he first came to my attention. You clearly are not being dishonest, he clearly did not catch you in anything (indeed, as I said he didn’t make any sense with the first have of his claim to start with, one has to assume what he was driving at) and his indignation appears melodramatic and over the top, especially for someone without a clear argument to make to begin with.
As to whether you should dump him or not, as FF said your blog your choice. Me, I’d likely leave his responses but simply refuse to reply to him, I don’t like preventing people from speaking and making their opinions on my work known, I just don’t feel I have to respond unless I see fit to do so, so I leave all comments even incoherent and intellectually dishonest ones in my comments section, if nothing else they show anyone not blinded by partisanship on whatever the topic is the intellectual dishonesty of the person to begin with any what kind of opposition one may be dealing with. The only comments I have ever deleted to date were spam ads, although I always reserve the right to ban someone if they give me sufficient reason to, so far though no one has managed to offend me to that extent.
Personally though I have seen very little from PR that makes me think an honest debate is possible with him, although I will say I think at least part of his dishonesty is due to his inability to see reality/facts for what they are instead of only through a partisan filter and therefore it is not knowing deception since the first person being deceived is PR himself. Still that doesn’t make it any easier for those that do deal in reality to have an intellectually honest discourse/debate with him though. So it is possible he thinks he is being honest, but his delusions get in the way of his ability to recognize he isn’t in actual fact. Although his aggressive behavior and his willingness to resort to insults easily does tend to make it hard to buy that as the likely explanation. He certainly appears to have a bit of a short fuse when it comes to people taking apart his reasoning and showing it for the garbage it in so many cases has been.
Anyhow, your call either way, I’ll support your right to choose in this as I would for anything else…(sorry, couldn’t resist it) Hope you didn’t mind the lengthy response and analysis of PR’s claim to have you being a lying hypocrite, it just irked me that not only was he calling you a liar but that the case he was making was literally nonsensical as written and required one to assume what he may have meant.
I think PR should get some therapy and work out for himself whatever his issue is with dad or with mom or with whoever it that kept arguing with him and bullshitting him and that he couldn’t trust so much. Otherwise he keeps foisting his issue on the rest of the world — and every time he leads with his kind of defensiveness, he draws back to himself more of the same kind of responses he probably doesn’t want to get. He needs to realize that the same old tactic won’t change dynamics for him — instead, he keeps re-creating them over and over again.
Do whatever you need to do, JJ, since you asked. I’m okay with it, and that’s because I’ve been noticing the way you handle people in general and I think you’re very decent. You have a wonderful way of standing up to people while at the same time accepting them as human beings. If you weren’t decent to folks I wouldn’t hang around here — I’m way too sensitive to hang around abuse. I’ve also noticed that people tend to behave themselves very well when visiting here, and I’ve lived long enough to know that the culture of a place has a lot to do with the tone established by the host, as it were. So I say trust your gut on this. Life moves and grows all the time — we can’t get TOO caught up in form! (A lesson wingnut fundies desperately need to learn.)
I hate banning people 😦 and usually I only do it in the most extreme cases (ie. one idiot was spamming with huge long comments that blathered on completely off-topic and I finally banned him). But Patrick has tried my patience too many times.
I have a couple of other conservative commenters(ie. Raphael), who state their case, we have a discussion and we usually agree to disagree. But they don’t start off by calling me a liar and an idiot, and wasting time with pedantic arguments about minutia, trying to get some kind of a *gotcha*.
From what I can determine, Patrick’s whole argument centers around the word “choice”, as in “pro-choice”, and his position is that I’m not really pro-*choice* because I don’t want to give doctors a *choice*. It’s kind of a silly argument for a few reasons (arguing over a word? please.), but primarily because it ain’t my problem to make sure anti-choice doctors have a choice. Also I think my post makes it clear that I don’t mind them making a *choice* as long as they do it in a timely fashion, which is more than most people would give them.
Anyway, that’s the argument. He’s been asking me the same freaking question for months on end, and I’ve answered him numerous times, but he’s finally tested my patience. Even *I* have limits.
AH! Thanks JJ, that does clear things up. One of the more frustrating things about those that are too full of zealotry is the inability to deal with semantics and the way they redefine words to suit themselves without considering how context affects meaning. That appears to be what he is talking about regarding choice. You are using it in a known definition in a specific context, and he wants to apply it across the board and then claim when you disagree with a choice totally different from the originally known/defined context that this proves you are trying to have it both ways. Classic intellectual dishonesty in action, and I can easily see someone with as strong a set of blinders on as PR has shown thinking they are being intellectually honest when they are not. In such a situation you cannot have an honest disagreement with someone incapable of using language fairly and accurately. I see where your frustration is based with him.
orange – You seem to be pretty familiar with PR’s MO.
Just wanted to belatedly thank you for the nice sentiments. I can be a bit of an asshole sometimes, but generally I try to be fair 😛
Patrick can actually be okay when he wants to be normal — ie. without the accusatory, derogatory tone — but he seems to have gotten into this shtick of dogging people with the same questions until they finally go nuts. It’s too bad because he occasionally writes a good post, thoughtful, intelligent etc., so it’s disappointing when he backslides into being a jerk. (Of course, he probably thinks I’m a jerk, so there ya go. Can’t please everyone.)
Scotian – One thing about PR, when he thinks he’s got something he worries it like a bulldog, long after it should have been buried in the yard. I get tired of replying to the same questions over & over, as if asking me a few more times will elicit a different response. It’s frustrating and generally a waste of time when someone purposely misinterprets what you’ve said, and makes a big “gotcha” game out of it.
Oh well. He can have a time-out in the corner for awhile 😉