Skip to main content

View Diary: Kansas legislature contemplates allowing (and requiring) doctors to lie to women (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You'd think that doctors would be lining (8+ / 0-)

    up to be the first to violate it on purpose and challenge it in court . . .    it's like shooting fish in a basket.

    •  The breast cancer part? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      historys mysteries, wmholt

      Maybe.

      But I don't think any decent, ethical doctor is going to lie to a patient about an ectopic pregnancy just so this law can be challenged in court. The woman sitting in front of them who may lose her life or her fertility takes precedence over the theoretical safety of women in general.

      One of the fundie crazies will do it, though.

      "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

      by kyril on Fri Mar 09, 2012 at 02:39:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I guess that not lying would work, too! (?) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        liberalis, pdx kirk

        if the diary is correct that it is required in certain situations.

        That was more what I was alluding to.

        •  Ah (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          historys mysteries, NonnyO

          The required lying is about abortion causing breast cancer. Yes, I can see a doctor challenging that pretty quickly.

          "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

          by kyril on Fri Mar 09, 2012 at 02:53:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, not not lying, or something like that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril

            there's some type of confusing double or triple negative issue afoot here.

            But anyways, yeah, it would seem that if a doctor deliberately and emphatically told a patient that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer, that would both be telling the truth AND violating the law . . . .  

            the court case would likely be widely publicized and quite educational (you know, like that Intelligent Design/Creationism trial in PA a few years back)

      •  You would be surprised. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pdx kirk, kyril, big annie

        There are some doctors in the OBGYN community that are downright sadists.

        The place where women are most likely to suffer some form of abuse or violence in the medical community is during the act of giving birth and during the act of having an abortion.

      •  Doctors watch what's good for doctors (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        I am not sure that a doctor is obligated to tell the truth to the patient in every case. If she believes that it is in the patient's best interest not to know the truth, then she might conceal it.  If that is true-and I am not sure that it is-then it clearly the patient's welfare is paramount, not the doctor's comfort, and the decision must be weighed very carefully.  

        If the doctor feels morally compromised in treating a certain case then the doctor should refer the case to another physician, not lie to the patient, to the patient's detriment, in order to salve the doctor's own conscience.

        But the purpose of the law is just to get every doctor to refuse to perform abortion, and to make it ever more difficult for any woman to get an abortion.  Of course, it makes it harder for a woman suffering a failed pregnancy to save her own life, but I guess that they can die happy, knowing that they have please the Kansas legislature.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site