A Woman Was Denied Medication for Being of ‘Childbearing Age.’ She Just Sued the Hospital

If doctors (or pharmacists) want the choice to impose their own religion on their patients, then at minimum need need to disclose that before ever meeting a patient. Additionally it would disqualify them from accepting any patients that are subsidized with taxpayer money.

This could act like the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of cigarettes:

WARNING: this physician acts with their own religion in mind before your well being. This could be a danger to your health.

I don't understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods -- shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever -- that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter's side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.

Doctors are held to a different standard because... the mental gymnastics say it's totally fine when it's a woman being denied service I guess?

If these healthcare "professionals" only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.

Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.
- Don't get it either. I am sure it is quite possible to be a doctor and not be involved with abortion. I am an engineer and I have strong objections to working on military stuff, so I don't work for military contractors. Other ones don't so they do.
- I'm going to try again (and you know, maybe I'm just wrong but here's what I'm seeing).
  
  There are doctors in the medical field already, with specific beliefs that may be sexist but are not generally speaking, sexist people. There is also a shortage of doctors.
  
  Do we really want to throw out an entire doctor (that takes years of training) because they don't want to do a particular procedure?
  
  There is a secondary point of when is refusal to do a procedure sexism or religion vs genuine medical objection to the harms caused (in their medical opinion).
  
  There is an additional point where I fundamentally think legal compulsion is a terrible tool in a free society and should be used as an absolute last resort.
  
  When it comes down to something as sensitive as medicine, I'd rather my doctor be on board or I find a different doctor vs my doctor being compelled to do something they don't believe in or outright having no doctor to go to because ... there aren't enough.
  
  There's also the possibility (and it seems like in the video) that the Roe v Wade issue is also making this doctor far more skiddish even in New York State. We really haven't heard his side and that really is an important perspective.
  
  Surely there's somebody else this woman could see as well? There's no way this guy is the only one that knows about these medications and maybe another doctor would like to use a different medication anyways. There are plenty of other cases of doctors saying "you're fine" to people regardless of gender or sex and them needing to see a different doctor before getting the right treatment.
  
  I originally went after your analogy because it's so beyond comparison. You might as well make an analogy between a rocket scientist and a scientologist. There are so many layers of nuance here. Driving politics into medical decisions is part of how we got here ... is adding more complex "do I need a lawyer (to do what I believe is the best practice)" to a doctor's practice really a good idea?
  
  That presumably kind of worked for racism but I still can't imagine the truly racist doctors were giving their best service; like we didn't just say "you must see black patients or leave medicine" and then the problems were fixed. There are plenty of black people alive today that still distrust the institution of medicine -- including my neighbor who refused to get vaccinated because he doesn't trust doctors -- because of what's been done in the past.
No, they should have their medical license revoked. Doctors have to swear an oath to not intentionally or knowingly harm a patient for a reason, because their well being is their top priority. If they can't adhere to that oath because of arbitrary religious/philosophical/political/whatever beliefs, then they have no business being a medical professional.
- deleted by creator
- I agree. A doctor putting their own religious beliefs over established medical science and the well being of their patient is completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
Based on what I've read in r/childfree, it's far more common than not for doctors to prioritize the needs of a hypothetical husband or fetus over those of a real live woman. I've also known someone in real life who couldn't get a painful medical condition fixed until her mid 30s because the treatment caused sterility. The problem goes way beyond religion; it's more a matter of institutional sexism and the hubris of doctors thinking they know better than any woman who says she doesn't want kids.
- I've been to several different OBs trying to solve my almost-two-year-long-period and every single one of them refuses to do anything for me. I'm just "too young" for them to stop me from having kids one day. And giving me a hysterectomy is "too dangerous" and "risky" when my life isn't in danger. It doesn't matter that I've tried everything they suggest. Try it again!! It's so fucking tiring.
  
  I've just given up paying the constant doctor fees to see asshole doctors anymore and just figure I'll either stop having the problem eventually or I'll be "old enough" (40 maybe?) to finally get surgery... It's all a nightmare, especially in the religious south...
- Also, if she wanted to do it, adoptions are always needed.
Or, and hear me out, don't let them deny medical care based on their religion.
- You'd have to prove it was purely religion and not their "genuine medical opinion".
Claiming this is due to religion isn't accurate. This happens all the time due to plain old misogyny. Women have a tough time getting proper medical treatment at all, not just when it overlaps with religious fruitcakes.
How does anyone even become a doctor and still hold onto religion?
- Because medicine doesn't require you to be atheistic and after a while some really need something that can provide hope however irrational that might be?
- I mean it's pretty easy. It doesn't make a good marketing campaign for atheism, but the correlation between education and irreligion seems to be causal the other way. Being irreligious leads one towards more education, but becoming educated does not lead one away from religion... Getting a physics degree or medical degree just does not make you less religious.
- The human mind is something else. I work with so many skydaddy fearing engineers. Utterly freaken brilliant people without which civilization ends in fire and feces.
- "Maybe -I'M- god?"
- I was struggling with Biology for my associates degree back in 2007. I happened to teach Tae Kwon Do to the daughter of one of the state university Biology professors (I was only in community College at the time) and I asked the mom to tutor me.
  
  And goddamn. As smart as she was regarding Biology, she bought into Christianity hook, line, and sinker (her husband was a pastor).
We could start our own list. When I say "we" I mean someone else, because I'm both not smart enough to build that, and not in the right place in the world.
I like that. Makes it a lot easier to vote with your wallet.
- Except it doesn;t. Right now, roughly 20% of all hospitals in the US are owned by a religion; most are Catholic, and about 1/4 of them are 'some other religion'. That is up from 12% is 1995. What that means is that, in many cases--especially when it's an emergency--you won't have any choice at all except to accept religion-tainted healthcare.
  
  I've lived in places where the only option covered by my insurance was religions.

Even worse then the headline...

One of the nurses started calling other hospitals lying about what happened, and even found the patient on Facebook and messaged her partner

She knows has to travel outside of the state to get appointments

Well that sounds like an open-and-shut HIPPA violation case.
- *HIPAA
And I thought the time my mom got "fired" from her primary care because the nurse flatout lied about her interaction with her was overkill...

Holy fucking Handmaid's Tale.

"Your womb is worth more than you."

I hope they take his license after the insurance companies drop him.

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic but I'm nervous that she's going to lose and this whole misery machine is just going to keep churning.

Albany Medical Health Partners is who she's suing.
The specific hospital was Glenn's Falls.
For anyone wondering.

Dang, If it was going to be an upstate hospital I figured it would have been St Peters health partners. That group is fucked.
Glenn's Falls

What Glenn should do as she would be denied abortion in Murica!

Damn, unbelievable this shit is still happening. It was outrageous then, it's just barbaric now.

Conservative = Regressive. The worst part is that they only pine for it because of nostalgia and nostalgia has a tendency to be viewed through rose colored glasses
- To paraphrase a wise owl, when you look at something through rose colored glasses, all of the red flags are just flags.
- Conservative = Regressive.
  
  "Great Again" is just a euphemism for this.

Glens falls hospital is a toilet with entire floors that are abandoned. They don't even have fans for the women in the birthing center because "people keep stealing them" according to the staff so all this horribly hot summer, women that are about to have or just had a baby have to sit in a pool of sweat with no moving air in their rooms. It cost several thousand a day to stay there, but they can't provide $20 desk fans.

Damn, it really sounded like you were describing the USSR for a second but then you said "It cost several thousand a day to stay there..."

This kind of shit makes me sad every time I see it. Unbelievable the lengths some women have to go to get the medication they need. I am so tired of these types of doctors.

Not just medication, but just choices regarding their bodies in general. It's appalling. A friend of mine doesn't want kids at all. She has been denied twice to have an elective hysterectomy. The doctors told her they won't in case she decides to have kids.
- She can always ask for a bilateral salpingectomy. A lot of CF women have successfully had that done as IVF is still possible. If, however, she has endometriosis which is why she actually wants the hysterectomy done, then that's a fair bit harder. I'm unsure if there's a CF community on Lemmy, but the one on the other site had a lot of resources on how to talk with medical practitioners to get referred to someone who would do the treatment.

This sort of thing has been common practice since long before Dobbs. And it is usually motivated by the doctor's fear of getting sued over birth defects, especially if there is an alternative prescription that is not known to be associated with birth defects. And there almost always is an alternative.

And it is usually motivated by the doctor’s fear of getting sued over birth defects

I'd love to see some kind of citation or a medical professional's opinion. this seems like bullshit but I'm willing to read supporting evidence if you have any.
- Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:
  
  valproate should be avoided, if possible, in women of childbearing potential because of teratogenicity
  
  See also:
  
  In 2018, the European Medicines Agency introduced new restrictions on the use of valproate in girls and women of childbearing potential to avoid exposure during pregnancy
  
  And yes, valproate is also used to treat cluster headaches, so it could easily be the drug that the woman in the article can't obtain.
Yup. Common practive with anti-epileptics - some have worse implications for babies than others which is why those said others are used first.
- I just noticed this in the article:
  
  Where are we drawing the line here? Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test
  
  Nearly all hospitals have long required pregnancy tests for some things, like getting a CT scan (which involves radiation exposure). And if the test is positive, the doctor is supposed to consider alternatives.
What birth defects would there be in this case?
- I don't know, because the medication in question hasn't been identified.
  
  But in general, if a medication causes any birth defects (or, more often, miscarriages) in lab animals then it won't be used at the equivalent dose in pregnant patients. It would be unethical to try to find out what it does to a human fetus.

Next week: drinking age for women raised to 50, just in case.

Right? What sort of bullshit is this. At least booze has no real gatekeepers.

I suspect that such decisions are being driven by fear of tort liability WAY more than any religious or social beliefs of the medical practitioners. I’m not trying to argue in favor of denying women needed medical treatment in any way, shape, or form—it’s just that my lawyer senses are tingling, and I wonder if this is an area where Doctors are overall more likely to get sued if they offer the treatment than deny the treatment. Any MDs in here want to offer a more informed opinion of what the F is going on with such denial of care situations?

No, not in New York. These were personal decisions on the part of the health care providers, and I think this lawsuit is not only appropriate but desperately needed.

The suit is exactly targeted. When fetal personhood is considered to outweigh the life of the mother, it’s absolutely something that needs to be fought tooth and nail. When a hypothetical future fetus is determined to be more important than the life and health of the mother, we’ve entered into a zone that can only be called psychotic.

There is no case that makes it more clear that they’re turning women into sub-persons.
- This is the thing, and why this case seems shoe-in. None of the bullshit the recent SCOTUS has been saying about fetal rights can possibly hold if there isn't a fetus in the first place.
  
  And I hate that as a pro-choicer I'm the one on the side of "erode the decision", but we need to slowly slip law back off this ledge. First a case where we know there wasn't a fetus. Then a case that erodes the amount of pregnancy testing a patient needs before receiving lifesaving care for herself. Etc.
  
  I still cannot believe we live in a post-Dobbs world.
- Thanks.
- Amen, Republicans saw the gradual erosion of sexism and took that personally. I suspect part of this now is revenge.
  
  We need groups like the Satanic Church to fight fire with fire. Sue against things that could possibly hurt a fetus if you got pregnant tomorrow. Undue stress at work? Being exposed to harmful vapors and substances? Being treated roughly by police? Sue the ever living fuck out of them.
  
  I don't doubt that Republicans will apply a double standard, but we need to make sure that double standard is constantly broadcasted so the people turn on them.
Yes, this is very likely driven by fear of a malpractice lawsuit. Medications that can harm a fetus are supposed to be a last resort for those who can get pregnant. So if there are other potential medications for this woman, she will likely find it difficult to get a prescription for this one regardless of the doctor's religious beliefs.
Couldnt the MD get a written confirmation from the patient that they informed them about the risks for a potential fetus?
- That's unlikely to make a difference in court. Doctors are responsible for recommending the least risky treatment options. They aren't supposed to leave everything up to the patient.

I'm surprised this happened in NY. That's the kind of BS you'd expect elsewhere.

This is so fucked up.

Up-state NY is more rural and conservative. Towns in the mountains can be fairly small and isolated; those areas vote extremely red.
- Maybe but it was apparently in the Albany metro,
  
  I know folks commute there from the Adirondacks but Albany's one of the least religious cities in the world apparently
As soon as you see “upstate”, you can bet it’s as provincial as any near midwestern state. I grew up along the southern border with PA. It’s more conservative than most people think. The Amish and Mennonite residents feel right at home in those communities.
- Ah, I had no idea.
- This wasn't along the border though it was in Albany.
It's upstate. Isn't that like republican central?
- Upstate, downstate, all around state. Anywhere outside of large urban centers-state.
  
  It's the same all around America. Further from the cities you get, the more you find people exhibiting inexplicable Southern affectation, MAGA cultism and general shitheel behavior. Like, there are portions of North East OH that are geographically closer to Canada than the Mason Dixon Line, yet they're still flying traitor flags and sound more southern than actual southerners.

Good. They need to be sued.

Don't get your hopes up. She sued pro se, which means she couldn't find or doesn't want a lawyer to take her case. Either way, it is very unlikely she will win.

I have chronic pain. I also have the privilege of being male, so I do not have to go through what she went through, but I would probably not make it out of it alive considering how severe my pain is and what I tried to do about it once before.

I agree with the points made in this article, but I don't think they did due diligence in reporting on what doctors or hospitals blacklisted her and why. I'd like to know the reasoning behind why she was denied treatment everywhere locally. I suspect that there's an interesting story there.

Yeah there's an interesting story, the doctors lied about her to other doctors:

According to Rule, after she shared audio recordings of her interactions with the neurologist on TikTok, an employee at the hospital contacted another hospital in the area, alleging that Rule livestreamed her appointments. This led to Rule’s removal from the second hospital, Malta Medical (also under Albany Medical Health Partners), in the middle of treatment for her cluster headaches. Rule denies livestreaming.
- Right, and it's great that we hear her side of the story as it truly is an injustice. I also noticed that the writer did say that they wouldn't comment on ongoing litigation, but still, what about all the other hospitals that blacklisted her, right?
  
  Also, not a smart move on her part publicizing that stuff before the trial, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.
  
  Anyway, I hope she wins the shit out of that lawsuit!

What is the medicine in question? Any other MD (or better, neurologist) here? As far as I know, most of the standard treatment for cluster headaches are safe for pregnant women...

She's not pregnant though so it wouldn't matter.
- Commonly they dont recommend embryotoxic medication in woman of childbearing age, as unecpected pregnancies happen and the chance for severe birth defects increase. Sometimes these can only be detected late into a pregnancy, so if the person might want to keep a pregnancy it would be not to take it.
Not a Dr. but enjoy a good scientific paper.

Intranasal dihydroergotamine is a category X. Aka it causes fetal damage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971427/

Also for those that don't know a cluster headache is a migraine on steroids. Also referred to as "suicide headaches" due to a common event prior to effective treatment.
- Also, also referred to as exploding head syndrome
- You're right. There are other options though. Like oxygen therapy triptan, etc. I don't understand why didn't the doctor just prescribe the drug. Just let the patient sign an informed consent.... especially if the patient isn't pregnant and not planning pregnancy at the moment.

Wouldn't contraceptives be an even better protection?

You can't have birth defects if you're never conceived *taps head*

Under his eye.

Good

https://www.glensfallshospital.org/about/about-us/contact-us

I feel for her, but this feels shady as hell. Never mentions the drug, which could be because if people knew, they'd look into it and possibly side against her. Then add she's a TikTok'r and "content creator" which means all these clicks into her are making her a lot of money.

My guess is that the drug is valproate. It's used for headaches as well as epilepsy, though obviously other drugs can be used instead.

The problem with valproate is that it is causes birth defects in two thirds (!!) of pregnancies, including spina bifida in 10% of pregnancies.

The World Health Organization and the European Medicine Agency have issued statements/regulations against prescribing it to any women of childbearing potential. Plenty of American docs take a similar approach, regardless of religious beliefs. Just to be crystal clear, neither the WHO nor the EMA pay attention to Dobbs, the SCOTUS, or the GOP.

The FDA mandates that such drugs are only dispensed to patient with evidence of pregnancy testing and contraception use. (Which is IMHO common sense to require.)

I did not find information if the woman did a pregnancy test and used a reliable contraceptive.

It says right in the video in the article that she uses contraception and would have an abortion if it failed. I'm sure she would've taken a pregnancy test, but that doctor wasn't having it. What more do you need to feel like this woman should be "allowed" to receive life-saving medication? She was literally passing out from pain. Then was prescribed a med that dangerously drops her already low blood pressure.
- I can't, for technical reasons, watch the TikTok video If she uses contraception and no contraindications are present she should by all means receive an effective treatment.
So your assumption is that she lied or tried to pull one over on the Dr for pain meds?
- No, that not! The drug she wants is not a pain killer.
  
  Maybe, she didn't want to make a pregnancy test and did not want to use the pill or spiral, etc. The doctors can only give her the drug if these conditions are met (she can not get pregnant at the moment). Because it is clearly stated on the packaging label and accompanying documentation. If they would give it anyway they would be personally liable (and responsible) for a possible stillbirth or handicapped child.
  
  This is only speculation on my part. Maybe it is all totally different.

(irony): if nobody ever thinks about future tax payers and slaves forced to work for minimum wages (in the "rich" countries that even have minimum wages) how are we expecting western society to sustain itself? This is horrible and reveals how we are treated as captive animals by our "shepherds".

Why do you think they're trying to do away with reproductive rights? Got to have a ready supply of slave labour.
- And disposable soldiers!