Thinking about abortion now a crime.

Quote :

Taylor confided in the nurse treating her

Quote :

Under federal law, health care providers can release limited information to law enforcement, but not if it was given in the course of that person's "treatment related to the propensity to commit this type of violent act."

Disclosure of some information could be a violation of federal rules protecting personal medical information, Rigg said.

She was said she was previously thinking about it.

Nurses are also legally bound not to give out patient information except in specific circumstances, which this does not meet. The nurse discussing the patient with the doctor who is treating the patient in the ER is not a breech. That's precisely what ought to be occurring. I find no mention as to whether the doctor in question was the one treating her in the ER. If not, then there has been an even bigger breech of confidentiality than from the police being brought into this. Going to the police is where the breech of confidentiality occurred. I still see no good evidence to indicate that they had good reason to believe she was desperate enough to throw herself down stairs to lose the baby. As I've said before, if they were genuinely concerned with self-harm, they'd have had her put in the psych ward, or something similar.

Going to the ER is not third-party. She went directly seeking treatment.

Lady Anne wrote:

You fail. Abortion is legal everywhere in the United States.

Indeed. My bad.

lemmingwriter wrote:

Bringing in a doctor in the ER to consult on a case doesn't fall under the "third party" rule in this case, I believe. The third party thing would be if, say, a court required a mental evaluation of someone by one of their docs or if, as in your example, an insurance company has one of their approved doctors conduct an exam of a prospective insured. These are medical professionals used at the request of a true third party (the court, the insurance company).

In this case, a nurse (involved in the patient's care) called over a doctor, who is reasonably considered to be involved in the patient care setting. There's only so much a nurse can do by him-/herself, and anyone seen in an ER is under a physician's care (no matter how long it takes to see one).

Good point, but the doctor-patient relationship can only be established if the doctor and patient have met and the patient is seeking doctor's advice and treatment, in here, the doctor approached her.

Quote :

doctor, who questioned her

There could be doctor-patient confidentiality between the nurse and her, but not with the doctor.

rae wrote:

I find no mention as to whether the doctor in question was the one treating her in the ER.

Indeed, we don't even know if it's the ER doctor.

Huh. You think, maybe that's why the nurse called the doctor in the first place?

If the nurse went to a doctor who was not the one treating her in the ER, that is still not third party as discussed in the text you've quoted. When you go to the ER, you typically see a doctor. Has anyone in the US gone to the ER and not seen a doctor, only a nurse? (Not being facetious there. To my knowledge, you always have a doctor see you.)

As lemmingwriter said, third party is likely going to be something court-ordered. If the nurse went to a doctor that is not the one that was treating the patient, I'm not sure what the legality of that would be, but it certainly wouldn't be the third-party situation you're discussing. If the doctor was not the one treating her, then I think we'd need a lawyer specializing in medical cases, or someone in the medical profession specializing in legal shit, to sort that out.

rae wrote:

If the nurse went to a doctor who was not the one treating her in the ER, that is still not third party as discussed in the text you've quoted.

Yes, but she was not actively seeking advice regarding her pregnancy from the doctor, as discussed in the text I've quoted.

rae wrote:

If the doctor was not the one treating her, then I think we'd need a lawyer specializing in medical cases, or someone in the medical profession specializing in legal shit, to sort that out.

I'll say, especially since

article 1 wrote:

nurse then summoned a doctor

article 2 wrote:

the nurse brought in a doctor

the articles talk non-specifically about the doctor's identity.

Psy-4 wrote:

rae wrote:

If the nurse went to a doctor who was not the one treating her in the ER, that is still not third party as discussed in the text you've quoted.

Yes, but she was not actively seeking advice regarding her pregnancy from the doctor, as discussed in the text I've quoted.

But in going to an emergency room, she is actively seeking a doctor's care and advisement. That's the whole point of going. You cannot go to an ER here in the US and not be under a doctor's care. The nurses cannot do everything in a medical setting, even if they know all the techniques and such, without a doctor's approval/guidance/invested authority behind them, and I'm saying that coming from a long line of nurses in the family. And if a specialist was summoned, or a second was brought in (as in, the doctor says, hey, can I get your take on this case?) while she is in the same facility, that's continuity. It's not a third party. Sorry.

And talking non-specifically about the doctor? Well, the nurse probably did summon a doctor, since the hospital in question likely had more than one. Or, you know, the article is intentionally keeping things general and non-specific for any one of a number of reasons, including (ironically) privacy.

Knight wrote:

I dunno, parents generally have the rights to make choices like that for their children. The children may resent them for it, but it is their right to do what they feel is best for their children, is it not?

Yeah, would you all just shut the fuck up about the tragedy of TO BE FORESKIN, OR NOT TO BE FORESKIN and get back to the abortion wank? There are worse decisions a parent can make about their child and their child's body (and entire identity) without the child's consent. Or hell, get to the root of the entire phenomenon and talk about narrow social standards and expectations placed on an individual for something so insignificant in the first place.

Now everybody start arguing with Psy and rae.
Here's my shot: The fact that anyone is even arguing about a woman getting arrested for expressing anything abortion related is fucking retarded and backwards.

GO /ö/

lemmingwriter wrote:

But in going to an emergency room, she is actively seeking a doctor's care and advisement.

And since she was getting treated by a nurse, she most likely already has received some.

lemmingwriter wrote:

And if a specialist was summoned, or a second was brought in (as in, the doctor says, hey, can I get your take on this case?) while she is in the same facility, that's continuity.

That could be a different doctor, which requires a new doctor-patient relationship. A patient doesn't make a relationship with an entire hospital.

lemmingwriter wrote:

It's not a third party. Sorry.

Yes, I misinterpreted what 'third party' meant, I get it. It hardly changes anything. The law isn't as impatient with loopholes and technicalities, as you think.

lemmingwriter wrote:

And talking non-specifically about the doctor? Well, the nurse probably did summon a doctor, since the hospital in question likely had more than one. Or, you know, the article is intentionally keeping things general and non-specific for any one of a number of reasons, including (ironically) privacy.

It wouldn't hurt them to indicate consistency.

[aside]Little do they know that the direction I am going in is even worse than what the original is.[/aside]

Verandering wrote:

The fact that anyone is even arguing about a woman getting arrested for expressing anything abortion related is fucking retarded and backwards.

We're having a legal argument. The first to pull the best technicality wins. I'm having fun. Shut up.

Verandering wrote:

Yeah, would you all just shut the fuck up about the tragedy of TO BE FORESKIN, OR NOT TO BE FORESKIN and get back to the abortion wank?

But we do that all the tiiiiime, I wanna do somethin' diiiiifferent! C'mon, can't we talk about cocks just a little longer, Daddy? *whine*

Delcat wrote:

Verandering wrote:

Yeah, would you all just shut the fuck up about the tragedy of TO BE FORESKIN, OR NOT TO BE FORESKIN and get back to the abortion wank?

But we do that all the tiiiiime, I wanna do somethin' diiiiifferent! C'mon, can't we talk about cocks just a little longer, Daddy? *whine*

Come on, Delly, let's talk about whether it's OK to circumcise babies IN THE WOMB even if it might lead to miscarriage.

Or, alternatively COCKS WANGS WILLIES!

ZoZo wrote:

Come on, Delly, let's talk about whether it's OK to circumcise babies IN THE WOMB even if it might lead to miscarriage.

Why, that's so convenient that it only could have been dreamed up by Wal-Mart!

ZoZo wrote:

Come on, Delly, let's talk about whether it's OK to circumcise babies IN THE WOMB even if it might lead to miscarriage.

It would be more appropriate. IIRC, the external sex organs are one of the last things to develop, and isn't a big portion of the abortion argument about how a developed fetus should or should not be counted as sacred human life? I'm sure you can stretch (the foreskin) to reach that argument somehow.

The concept of thought-police will be popular this year.

Going Rogue's coming out for CoH soon: the new city will have thought-police. Millions of people will be discussing the idea by July, and countless thousands of stupid opinions will arise.

Ah, Internet, you are never boring.

Manny wrote:

The concept of thought-police will be popular this year.

Going Rogue's coming out for CoH soon: the new city will have thought-police. Millions of people will be discussing the idea by July, and countless thousands of stupid opinions will arise.

Ah, Internet, you are never boring.

Yes, but at least Mother Mayhem's thought police will do us the favor of mind-raping people who have those thoughts.

(Can't wait for Going Rogue, incidentally [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] )

gaijinguy wrote:

Manny wrote:

The concept of thought-police will be popular this year.

Going Rogue's coming out for CoH soon: the new city will have thought-police. Millions of people will be discussing the idea by July, and countless thousands of stupid opinions will arise.

Ah, Internet, you are never boring.

Yes, but at least Mother Mayhem's thought police will do us the favor of mind-raping people who have those thoughts.

(Can't wait for Going Rogue, incidentally [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] )

Me either! Just the graphical upgrades make me happeh. :D

If any of you are in the test server, shoot me a PM.

Regarding GR, I sure hope La Resistance has chips installed in their brains to broadcast pro-Emperor thoughts or else my extremely cliché'd Tetragrammaton Cleric is going to have a short lifespan.

Emperor Marcus Cole is so dashing in his white uniform. Why can't he and Statesman dress that way for their superhero costume? It's not like they have a secret identity as shoe salesmen. Maybe the faceplate keeps their faces pretty?

Well, your extremely cliche'd Tetragrammaton Cleric is going to be a Blaster, Defender, or Corrupter AT, meaning a .95 HP base, limited access to shields, and mez protection that's going to be spotty at best. So, yeah, I'd sign him up for the Floor Inspector's Union ASAP (especially if Dual Pistols attracts as much aggro as I think it's going to.)

. . . that said, I'm totally making one too. Dual pistols are just way too cool to pass up.

ET: Also, the "Emperor Cole in his white uniform" picture has "dictator of South American banana republic" written all over it. At least Lord Recluse has the courtesy to go all-out on his Evil Overlord trappings.

Yes, the Rule of Cool is absolute. I already have a 50 Ice/Cold Corruptor so I know all the wonders of dying instantly from Alpha strikes. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Not like that's going to stop me from going Christian Bale on the Praetorians.

gaijinguy wrote:

ET: Also, the "Emperor Cole in his white uniform" picture has "dictator of South American banana republic" written all over it. At least Lord Recluse has the courtesy to go all-out on his Evil Overlord trappings.

I just like white military uniforms.

Especially if the person wearing it can kill a roomful of assassins without breathing hard.

...

OH GOD MUST WATCH EQUILIBRIUM AGAIN [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Manny wrote:

OH GOD MUST WATCH EQUILIBRIUM AGAIN [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You mean the last ten minutes of Equilibrium, right?

Knight wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Knight wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

Knight wrote:

Perhaps not necessary but isn't it supposed to be more hygienic or something? I'm always confused as to exactly why this is such a big deal, but maybe that's because I myself am uncircumcised. If I had more time on my hands at the moment I'd Google this myself, but what real difference is there between being circumcised or not, other than the lack of a foreskin? What difference does the procedure make that it's worth this much of a fuss?

The point is it doesn't make a difference. It's unnecessary surgery.

But if it doesn't make a difference why raise such a damn fuss about it? It is something that has had no effect on your life whatsoever, if it really does make no difference. Whether necessary or not, why bother complaining about something that doesn't affect you?

The fact is that its a matter of rights. The right to choose whether or not you want the skin of your penis chopped off. It's about having your genitals invaded for aesthetics and tradition, but no other good reason. Its the fact that something that *should* be so invasive sounding and uncomfortable to talk about is played up as the most normal thing in the world and is not only perfectly fine, but expected. That's the point.

I dunno, parents generally have the rights to make choices like that for their children. The children may resent them for it, but it is their right to do what they feel is best for their children, is it not?

Is there seriously circumcision wank in a thread about unwanted abortion?

I vaguely want to know how this came about, but I don't feel like wading through 4 pages of wank, can anyone give me the TL;DR version? Or will you all just scream at me to use my internet detective skills?

Delcat wrote:

Verandering wrote:

Yeah, would you all just shut the fuck up about the tragedy of TO BE FORESKIN, OR NOT TO BE FORESKIN and get back to the abortion wank?

But we do that all the tiiiiime, I wanna do somethin' diiiiifferent! C'mon, can't we talk about cocks just a little longer, Daddy? *whine*

i kno rite? D8

Abortion wank is the most irritating kind of wank, considering neither side tries to back up their arguments with facts. One side arbitrarily claims the baby isn't human or alive or whatnot and it's the mother's body and on and on, which has no basis in fact. Whether or not that baby is some human life is entirely opinion.

The OTHER side goes OMG ALL LIFE IS SACRED THAT BABY IS ALIVE AND HUMAN AND SO ON! Which is the same subjective bullshit going in the other direction.

Then there's the cutwank. It is the most utterly pointless wank there is. It's like voting for a third party and then spending SIX HOURS TELLING EVERYONE YOU MEET ABOUT HOW YOU DID SO!

WITH A MOTHERFUCKING MEGAPHONE!

So now I have to choose between backing the abortion wank to snuff out the cutwank, or fueling the cutwank (possibly the easiest thing ever) to snuff the abortion wank. While I SHOULD have been making this choice, I was simply wondering if the bar my clothes hang from is sturdy enough to hang myself from. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Is there seriously circumcision wank in a thread about unwanted abortion?

I vaguely want to know how this came about, but I don't feel like wading through 4 pages of wank, can anyone give me the TL;DR version? Or will you all just scream at me to use my internet detective skills?

I'm not even that sure. All I know is Darth saw an opportunity to cry out, and with Mal, it spiralled from there.

On-topic: As far as I understood, feticide laws were pretty much intended to allow people who murder pregnant woman/injure them to the point of miscarriage to be charged with murder.

And while I agree with the *sentiment*, (punish someone extra hard for killing a wanted child), I actually oppose feticide laws on a couple of grounds. 1) They're often used as a stepping stone towards giving fetuses 'personhood' rights and thus used to further deny legal abortion and 2) It has a tendency to derail whatever horrible thing was done to the MOTHER in favor of "AND SHE WAS PREEEEEEEGNANT!" Like, when I see reporting on a case where a pregnant woman was horribly assaulted or murdered, it sometimes seems like a case that would barely have been made the news had it not been a pregnant woman. Or the emphasis is entirely on the fact that the poor ickle fetus got killed. Dead woman? Eh, that's just par for the course. Dead fetus? STOP THE PRESS, WE GOT A STORY!

See: Pretty much any horror movie that has a pregnant woman in it. Usually we're told she's pregnant just so it will be MORE horrifying when she dies. The death of a woman alone? Not as significant or dramatic as the death of a pregnant woman, apparently.

I don't really have enough time to write up a separate post about this, so Ima just leave this here.