She's not pregnant, but doctors try to avoid long-term prescription of teratogenic drugs to patients who might become pregnant while taking them.
FlowVoid
joined 2 years ago
Another poster already mentioned the issue with Depakote, aka valproate:
See also:
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.
I can't believe it's not battery!
I don't think so. But if a med is not to be used in pregnant patients, then it's only used as a last resort for patients who could become pregnant while taking it.
Again, this is not about religious beliefs, it's standard CYA for health care providers.
In the case of valproate, there are even European regulations against using it in women during childbearing years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Imagine a coffee shop ad with a beautiful example of latte art, but when you get your latte you are horrified to find just plain foam. Unless the ad specifically mentioned latte art, I doubt you'd have grounds for a lawsuit.
As for your example, I'm finding it hard to imagine buying a car before getting inside it. A few dealers offer a pre-order option, but you can always back out of the sale once you see the car.
What definitions are in universal use?
No definition is in universal use.
meant to say gender when he said sex
He meant to say exactly what he said, and it was incorrect. He was not using your definition of sex. He was using it in the same sense as "I had a sex change operation".
Or "Now I want to change the sex on my birth certificate". Do you also chime in to inform people it's wrong to do that?
Viagra is pretty safe, as drugs go. Are you thinking of Vioxx? That stuff was taken off the market.