RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality

RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:06:52 PM)
chia... ever lived in a small town? quote: Called the Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act, the law requires all doctors to file information on a woman's age, marital status, education level, number of previous pregnancies, cost and type of abortion, as well as the mother's relationship to the father, with the Oklahoma Department of Health. Though it does not ask for names, the form poses 37 questions detailing a woman's personal situation. Critics say the first eight questions alone could easily lead to the identification of a woman who lives in one of the state's many small communities. "This law asks for so much information, and they are going to put it on the Internet for public scorn," said Davis. "Women who have abortions are considered murderers by many people, and you are going to put the name of a town of 200 and the fact that the girl is 17 and it's her first pregnancy and she in the 10th grade. People are going to know who it is." To me, even one is too many to be publically put on display.

kittinSol -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chiaThePet Tazz, If I am reading this article correctly, no one is being asked to forward identifying information which would include name, address, etc. From Tazzy's ABC link: "Called the Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act, the law requires all doctors to file information on a woman's age, marital status, education level, number of previous pregnancies, cost and type of abortion, as well as the mother's relationship to the father, with the Oklahoma Department of Health. Though it does not ask for names, the form poses 37 questions detailing a woman's personal situation. Critics say the first eight questions alone could easily lead to the identification of a woman who lives in one of the state's many small communities." Sorry, but if I'm in need of a medical act, I don't see how my education level, my relationship to whatever man I'm seeing, my marital status, my skin colour, or any other type of personal information, has to do in relation with that act, and how it's relevant to the state of Oklahoma.

WyldHrt -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:11:33 PM)
Sorry Chia, Tazzy is right. It isn't the collection of data that is the issue so much as posting said information on the web. With the things they are asking for, there is a good chance of people being able to figure it out if the female lives in a small town.

tazzygirl -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:12:34 PM)
i can see that information going to research and government offices, for statistical information... what the hell is the need for a web site???

rulemylife -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol It wouldn't be politically viable to even try with other medical issues, the uproar would be too loud. With abortion it's worth a try, simply because it's such an opinion rouser. I don't disagree with Zenny entirely: I think though that this is specifically concerning to women precisely because of the political nature of the abortion debate. In this case I think it is more of a religious issue. Have you ever been to Oklahoma? It's a staunch Bible belt state. But worse, it has the highest membership per population in the Assemblies of God. Which has the largest Pentecostal following in the country. You know, the faith healing, laying on of hands to drive out the demons, the speaking in tongues. The same church Palin belonged to with the pastor who exorcised a witch. Especially in Tulsa, where one of the sponsors of this legislation is from. You can drive down any street and see one of these churches and more often than not they will have some type of anti-abortion sign in front.

zenny -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:17:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ahem... and when a MAN is raped... HE doesnt get pregnant, does he. No, he likely needs medical attention for rectal tearing and internal bleeding as well as psychological help. If a person takes birth control out of fear of getting raped they probably need to rethink their activities and/or see a psychologist. If it is because they've been raped once before I can see where the phobia would come from although a chastity belt would work a great deal better - it would even protect a women from potential STDs in more ways. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Regardless, were there a disease of some sort or biological need for The Pill by some women, I'm sure she would get it covered by insurance. Actually, yeah, there is: it's called unwanted pregnancy. Contraception's a medical progress. It's prescribed by doctors for patients. It's a choice, not a medical reason. Use a condom, pull out, whatever you like. The reason it is prescribed by doctors is such that someone doesn't do something stupid with them. Just like other drugs. Again, I reiterate, sex is a choice, needing antibiotics is not.

tazzygirl -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:18:32 PM)
This isnt a religious problem... its a medical one. Which could very well lead to some poor girl being killed for being mastaken for having an abortion simply because she matched one of the web sites "entrys" and she was out sick with the flu that day.

zenny -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:19:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL... impotence is not a medical condition, its a fact of life, just like pregnancy, Only difference is one happens to men, and its considered medically necessary to correct and cover by insurance... and the other happens to women. Incorrect. One is the body not working correctly. The other is the desire to make the body not work correctly. I'm fairly certain when the body doesn't work it is a medical condition and when it does it isn't.

tazzygirl -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:21:17 PM)
quote: It's a choice, not a medical reason. Use a condom, pull out, whatever you like. The reason it is prescribed by doctors is such that someone doesn't do something stupid with them. Just like other drugs. Again, I reiterate, sex is a choice, needing antibiotics is not. Men dont take viagra simply because their prostate is enlarged... there are many reasons why a man cant get it up anymore. And, please, after years of men telling women to take responsibility for the children after they walk away, you expect a woman to allow a man to decide what mathod she can use to NOT get pregnant?

zenny -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:22:58 PM)
It is a religious and philosophical issue ergo a religious and philosophical problem. It becomes a medical issue when said women is attacked. Until then it is a moral and ethical (philosophical/religious) issue.

WyldHrt -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:24:09 PM)
quote: It's a choice, not a medical reason. Use a condom, pull out, whatever you like. Wanna guess what is a GREAT way to wind up pregnant? [8\|] quote: Again, I reiterate, sex is a choice, needing antibiotics is not. Sex is a choice....got it. So what's up with the Viagra?

chiaThePet -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:25:29 PM)
Again, I am not for putting personal identifying information anywhere publicly. What do we do when we google information? We seek gathered information. What are those eight questions? Again, each side will advance their agenda as best they can. If this is honestly damaging to anyone involved it must be stopped. But whom shall decide what information should be available when and where? Internet age, global information at our fingertips. I don't need to know if Marge next door has had an abortion. I don't care. Somewhere, someone apparently cares. They don't need to know that Marge personally had one. That I do care about. chia* (the pet)

BeingChewsie -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:25:40 PM)
I guess the much talked about right to health care for all doesn't extend to the right of all to receive it. How ironic when you think about it...

rulemylife -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:27:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Also, Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition. Yeah, there seems to be an outright epidemic of that medical condition. It's a wonder anyone at all could keep their dick hard before the wonders of modern pharmaceuticals. The introduction of sildenafil (Viagra, Pfizer) was a breakthrough for men suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED)—a common symptom of advancing age, as well as a consequence of diabetes and a side effect of many drug therapies. However, recent reports indicate that sildenafil and similar ED drugs, such as vardenafil (Levitra, Bayer/GlaxoSmith Kline) and tadalafil (Cialis, Lilly), are becoming increasingly popular among healthier, younger men to enhance sexual performance. According to Pfizer, the number of men under age 45 using sildenafil tripled in the 4 years since the drug was introduced in 1998. (Recreational Pharmaceuticals — DOC NEWS)

zenny -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:27:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: It's a choice, not a medical reason. Use a condom, pull out, whatever you like. The reason it is prescribed by doctors is such that someone doesn't do something stupid with them. Just like other drugs. Again, I reiterate, sex is a choice, needing antibiotics is not. Men dont take viagra simply because their prostate is enlarged... there are many reasons why a man cant get it up anymore. And, please, after years of men telling women to take responsibility for the children after they walk away, you expect a woman to allow a man to decide what mathod she can use to NOT get pregnant? Indeed, it can also be a neurological issue in which Viagra can help. Men aren't deciding. They (they being insurance companies) are saying they are not going to pay for woman's contraceptives such that they can go out and have sex, just like how they don't pay for man's contraceptives to go out and have sex. You're trying to make this a sex issue and being sexist in the process. Good job.

tazzygirl -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:28:48 PM)
LOL If a man cant get his cock hard... its a medical issue. Regardless if it may be caused by diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, medications, smoking, drinking, depression.. ect ect... all treatable without that little blue pill that insurance companies love to pay for.

tazzygirl -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zenny quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: It's a choice, not a medical reason. Use a condom, pull out, whatever you like. The reason it is prescribed by doctors is such that someone doesn't do something stupid with them. Just like other drugs. Again, I reiterate, sex is a choice, needing antibiotics is not. Men dont take viagra simply because their prostate is enlarged... there are many reasons why a man cant get it up anymore. And, please, after years of men telling women to take responsibility for the children after they walk away, you expect a woman to allow a man to decide what mathod she can use to NOT get pregnant? Indeed, it can also be a neurological issue in which Viagra can help. Men aren't deciding. They (they being insurance companies) are saying they are not going to pay for woman's contraceptives such that they can go out and have sex, just like how they don't pay for man's contraceptives to go out and have sex. You're trying to make this a sex issue and being sexist in the process. Good job. If they are willing to pay for the man's choice to get a chemical hard on, they should pay for a woman to not have to worry about the end result. 15-30 a month is alot cheaper than a delivery. or the viagra.

zenny -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:35:06 PM)
I will again point out that Viagra is not a contraception. Both men AND women pay for their contraceptives. quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt quote: It's a choice, not a medical reason. Use a condom, pull out, whatever you like. Wanna guess what is a GREAT way to wind up pregnant? quote: Again, I reiterate, sex is a choice, needing antibiotics is not. Sex is a choice....got it. So what's up with the Viagra? A penis grows by erections when a boy hits puberty. It is actually a great for of contraception, the problem is that most males have already placed a spurt or two of semen in the direction of the waiting egg without realizing it. I.E. pulling out too late (or not at all). If it weren't a great method of contraception the population would be larger now and a pesky thing like low sperm count wouldn't really matter. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: zenny Also, Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition. Yeah, there seems to be an outright epidemic of that medical condition. It's a wonder anyone at all could keep their dick hard before the wonders of modern pharmaceuticals. The introduction of sildenafil (Viagra, Pfizer) was a breakthrough for men suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED)—a common symptom of advancing age, as well as a consequence of diabetes and a side effect of many drug therapies. However, recent reports indicate that sildenafil and similar ED drugs, such as vardenafil (Levitra, Bayer/GlaxoSmith Kline) and tadalafil (Cialis, Lilly), are becoming increasingly popular among healthier, younger men to enhance sexual performance. According to Pfizer, the number of men under age 45 using sildenafil tripled in the 4 years since the drug was introduced in 1998. (Recreational Pharmaceuticals — DOC NEWS) Sounds like over prescription. Do something about it.

rulemylife -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:36:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl This isnt a religious problem... its a medical one. Which could very well lead to some poor girl being killed for being mastaken for having an abortion simply because she matched one of the web sites "entrys" and she was out sick with the flu that day. I'm not disagreeing, I'm pointing out the likely motivation for this legislation is religious.

tazzygirl -> RE: So much for Dr-patient confidentiality (10/24/2009 8:36:57 PM)
regardless of your stance on viagra, women are being selected for this abuse. no amount of your arguing will disuade anyone here from that opinion. And, um, explain, if you will, since something someone else pointed out nudged this question from me... since when is having an orgasm a medical necessity?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875