Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Whatever - Scalzi)   One doctor speaks out against transvaginal ultrasound. "If you are forced to enter an image into the patient chart, ultrasound the bedsheets and enter 'poor acoustic window...plus, I'm not a rapist'"   (whatever.scalzi.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, informed consent, Doonesbury, Thank You So Much, rapists, Mallet of Loving Correction, patients, physicians  
•       •       •

5927 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2012 at 10:44 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-03-20 07:21:15 PM  
A cigar to you, my good sir.
 
2012-03-20 07:26:06 PM  
I do not feel that it is reactionary or even inaccurate to describe an unwanted, non-indicated transvaginal ultrasound as "rape". If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape. And coercion of any kind negates consent, informed or otherwise.



yup.
 
2012-03-20 07:28:58 PM  
nice try doc, but i'm pretty sure they're passing a jobs bill amendment that would require the transvaginal ultrasounds to be performed by homeless drifters anyway.
 
2012-03-20 07:29:28 PM  
If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape.

You can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you pick your friend's nose and that's rape.


Not as catchy.
 
2012-03-20 07:31:29 PM  
Hi, doctor! Lawyer here. Why are you anonymous? Where is the AMA arguing against this, because I'm hearing crickets? Your cowardice is noted. Thanks for your help. Love, Women.
 
2012-03-20 07:32:06 PM  
You know, I just had a thought. If rape really is more about control than sex (and I've no reason to doubt this), then what does that say about Republicans?

It says they really really want to control women's bodies.
 
2012-03-20 07:37:37 PM  
Well said. I have been waiting and waiting to hear *something* from doctors or the AMA on all this - and I find it very disappointing that this is the Weeners I have heard from the medical establishment. I really expected a little more outrage from doctors on this one.
 
2012-03-20 07:39:06 PM  

pisceandreamer: . I really expected a little more outrage from doctors on t


Crickets.
 
2012-03-20 07:40:31 PM  
On reading the headline I was expecting Doctor Who.

/leaves disappointed.
 
2012-03-20 07:42:50 PM  
I really don't see how the government can get by with forcing something up a woman's vagina without her consent. This is small government, Republicans? The government forcing its way directly into the vagina's of women?
 
2012-03-20 07:44:45 PM  
The silence of the medical establishment is deafening. We have physician Farkers here. Kindly explain this. Because, I don't understand it.
 
2012-03-20 07:45:03 PM  
You know, I usually don't focus on 'slippery slopes'. But this is so high up on a slope I already don't like, and it's just going to get slipperier. And it's a pretty scary road to head down. I hope more professionals like this guy speak out. Even if they have to do it anonymously or silently.
 
2012-03-20 07:46:54 PM  

WorldCitizen: I really don't see how the government can get by with forcing something up a woman's vagina without her consent. This is small government, Republicans? The government forcing its way directly into the vagina's of women?


Republicans are about small government for real Americans. You know, straight white Protestant males.
 
2012-03-20 07:48:23 PM  

MorrisBird: Hi, doctor! Lawyer here. Why are you anonymous? Where is the AMA arguing against this, because I'm hearing crickets? Your cowardice is noted. Thanks for your help. Love, Women.


given how vicious our society can be, I don't blame the doc for keeping a low profile. he just wants to do his job and probably finds the entire political discussion distasteful. you stand up these days, you can expect to be attacked for it. Look what happened to Sandra Fluke - and she just testified before congress. it's not surprising people like this doctor just want to keep their heads down and prefer to not deal with the insane and nasty right wing attack dogs looking to scalp him for sticking up for his patients.

now...is that kind of lame? maybe. But its also very human. And I try very hard not to blame people for being merely human.
 
2012-03-20 07:51:01 PM  

WorldCitizen: I really don't see how the government can get by with forcing something up a woman's vagina without her consent. This is small government, Republicans? The government forcing its way directly into the vagina's of women?


Small enough to fit in your wife's vagina = pretty small, government wise.
 
2012-03-20 07:55:25 PM  

sno man: WorldCitizen: I really don't see how the government can get by with forcing something up a woman's vagina without her consent. This is small government, Republicans? The government forcing its way directly into the vagina's of women?

Small enough to fit in your wife's vagina = pretty small, government wise.


you've obviously never seen his wife's massive vagina.
 
2012-03-20 07:56:24 PM  

thomps: sno man: WorldCitizen: I really don't see how the government can get by with forcing something up a woman's vagina without her consent. This is small government, Republicans? The government forcing its way directly into the vagina's of women?

Small enough to fit in your wife's vagina = pretty small, government wise.

you've obviously never seen his wife's massive vagina.


This would be a surprise to my boyfriend.
 
2012-03-20 07:59:13 PM  

MorrisBird: Hi, doctor! Lawyer here. Why are you anonymous? Where is the AMA arguing against this, because I'm hearing crickets? Your cowardice is noted. Thanks for your help. Love, Women.


Maybe he doesn't want James O'Keefe types catching him breaking the law on a hidden camera.
 
2012-03-20 07:59:36 PM  

WorldCitizen: thomps: sno man: WorldCitizen: I really don't see how the government can get by with forcing something up a woman's vagina without her consent. This is small government, Republicans? The government forcing its way directly into the vagina's of women?

Small enough to fit in your wife's vagina = pretty small, government wise.

you've obviously never seen his wife's massive vagina.

This would be a surprise to my boyfriend.


it's probably best we don't tell him then.
 
2012-03-20 08:00:18 PM  

MorrisBird: Hi, doctor! Lawyer here. Why are you anonymous? Where is the AMA arguing against this, because I'm hearing crickets? Your cowardice is noted. Thanks for your help. Love, Women.


two words. George Tiller.
 
2012-03-20 08:01:55 PM  
Doctors in rational states that would NEVER pass a shiat law like this should speak out against this BS publicly.
 
2012-03-20 08:03:42 PM  
That the AMA wasn't all over this last month the day it came up may suggest the AMA leadership might lean toward the right. (big earning doctors, hmmmmm what are the odds) That this doctor wants to remain anonymous reinforces this. I suspect the doctors views and plan to ultrasound the sheets is not unique or exclusive as well.
 
2012-03-20 08:04:37 PM  
Maybe to assure the safety of future children before a marriage license is issued we should mandate that all women have their vaginas closely inspected inside and out, and all men should have their urethras (way up in there) and prostates checked out. That way, before a really religious man (who would likely support this vaginal ultrasound requirement) waiting for sex for marriage will be at most the second person who has rooted around in his wife's vagina.

Yeah, it's an awful, intrusive, and stupid idea, but is it any worse than what Republicans are coming up with these days?
 
2012-03-20 08:05:35 PM  

thomps: WorldCitizen: thomps: sno man: WorldCitizen: I really don't see how the government can get by with forcing something up a woman's vagina without her consent. This is small government, Republicans? The government forcing its way directly into the vagina's of women?

Small enough to fit in your wife's vagina = pretty small, government wise.

you've obviously never seen his wife's massive vagina.

This would be a surprise to my boyfriend.

it's probably best we don't tell him then.


Good idea.
 
2012-03-20 08:08:08 PM  

WorldCitizen: thomps: sno man: WorldCitizen: I really don't see how the government can get by with forcing something up a woman's vagina without her consent. This is small government, Republicans? The government forcing its way directly into the vagina's of women?

Small enough to fit in your wife's vagina = pretty small, government wise.

you've obviously never seen his wife's massive vagina.

This would be a surprise to my boyfriend.


Small enough to fit in your sister's vagina then. Don't make me bring up your mom's.
 
2012-03-20 08:09:10 PM  

sno man: That the AMA wasn't all over this last month the day it came up may suggest the AMA leadership might lean toward the right. (big earning doctors, hmmmmm what are the odds) That this doctor wants to remain anonymous reinforces this. I suspect the doctors views and plan to ultrasound the sheets is not unique or exclusive as well.


there's also a slight chance that the AMA is having a debate about this behind the scenes. I honestly don't know which direction (if any) the AMA leans as far as party affiliation goes...its also entirely possible that they're 1. considering a response or 2. hoping the whole thing blows over and nobody seriously expects them to rape their patients.

Lets face it - despite the very well documented text of this sort of legislation even I don't want to believe that the GOP (at any level, state or national) really wants to make rape mandatory in cases of pre-abortion medical screening. the idea is completely insane...but there it is, right there in black and white. So I can sorta see why the AMA might want to take their time and verify that this is really what the GOP plans to make into a law.
 
2012-03-20 08:10:32 PM  
I was going to propose repeatedly entering a single identical image in affected patient's charts nationwide, as a recognizable visual protest...but I don't have an ultrasound image that I own to the point that I could offer it for that purpose

I have had many TVUs, both pregnant and non pregnant. I volunteer my images for this purpose, provided my personal info is removed. You can have my babies who are alive and well, my healthy babies who didn't make it, my babies with issues who didn't make it, or my ovarian cycts. Take your pick. Whatever works.

Personally, I think the ovarian cycts would be lulzy. "Of course it's a fetus. Why else would she be having an abortion?"
 
2012-03-20 08:12:46 PM  

Weaver95: sno man: That the AMA wasn't all over this last month the day it came up may suggest the AMA leadership might lean toward the right. (big earning doctors, hmmmmm what are the odds) That this doctor wants to remain anonymous reinforces this. I suspect the doctors views and plan to ultrasound the sheets is not unique or exclusive as well.

there's also a slight chance that the AMA is having a debate about this behind the scenes. I honestly don't know which direction (if any) the AMA leans as far as party affiliation goes...its also entirely possible that they're 1. considering a response or 2. hoping the whole thing blows over and nobody seriously expects them to rape their patients.

Lets face it - despite the very well documented text of this sort of legislation even I don't want to believe that the GOP (at any level, state or national) really wants to make rape mandatory in cases of pre-abortion medical screening. the idea is completely insane...but there it is, right there in black and white. So I can sorta see why the AMA might want to take their time and verify that this is really what the GOP plans to make into a law.


True enough, there could be a bit of stay-the-hell-out-of-it[publicly]-in-case-they-come-after-us-next too.
 
2012-03-20 08:15:53 PM  

namegoeshere: cycts.


Yes, I know how to spell cyst. I farked it up twice. My typos tent to increase when I get pissed. And I am very pissed.
 
2012-03-20 08:17:03 PM  

namegoeshere: namegoeshere: cycts.

Yes, I know how to spell cyst. I farked it up twice. My typos tent to increase when I get pissed. And I am very pissed.


See?
 
2012-03-20 08:19:28 PM  
So can we assume at this point that if we move to a blue state that none of this bullshiat will be going on? That if we escape from the derpy states, we won't have to be wand-raped? Does anybody have a comprehensive list of these bills that are being passed so we can know which states to avoid?
 
2012-03-20 08:24:53 PM  

sno man: True enough, there could be a bit of stay-the-hell-out-of-it[publicly]-in-case-they-come-after-us-next too.


I think that's part of it. I think the other part of it is along the lines of 'the GOP cannot possibly be serious about this...nobody is that stupid'. I know that's generally been my reaction to most of what's coming out of the GOP machine these days - sheer disbelief at what i'm seeing and hearing.
 
2012-03-20 08:37:13 PM  

Weaver95: sno man: True enough, there could be a bit of stay-the-hell-out-of-it[publicly]-in-case-they-come-after-us-next too.

I think that's part of it. I think the other part of it is along the lines of 'the GOP cannot possibly be serious about this...nobody is that stupid'. I know that's generally been my reaction to most of what's coming out of the GOP machine these days - sheer disbelief at what i'm seeing and hearing.


And yet every day it's another similar story from a different state.... Hell, there were two yesterday.
They have to be sharing notes.
 
2012-03-20 08:43:26 PM  

sno man: from a different state.... Hell, there were two yesterday.
They have to be sharing notes.


oh I'm almost postive that there's some sort of coordination going on between the national level and various state party organizations. Nothing wrong with that, least in theory. its just that the end goal of THIS collaboration is perfectly vile and anti-democratic.

I suspect that some of the more thuggish local GOP party organizations would take great glee in punishing anyone who stands up against 'em. Again, Sandra Fluke comes to mind but she isn't even the first one to be victim to threats and intimidation over her personal political views. Not everyone can stand up to persecution...we can pretend that we'd never cave in and remain silent but until your ass is in the spotlight you don't really know if you can do the right thing while under pressure.

that's why I don't blame this doctor for wanting to keep his name out of it.
 
2012-03-20 08:43:31 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: MorrisBird: Hi, doctor! Lawyer here. Why are you anonymous? Where is the AMA arguing against this, because I'm hearing crickets? Your cowardice is noted. Thanks for your help. Love, Women.

Maybe he doesn't want James O'Keefe types catching him breaking the law on a hidden camera.


This. He'd be foolish to be unaware of repercussions.
Good for him for standing up.
 
2012-03-20 08:51:55 PM  
I have been waiting for this. Thank you for speaking out. I'm sorry that you were put in this position.
 
2012-03-20 08:52:29 PM  
+1000 to this doctor.
 
2012-03-20 08:53:50 PM  

Weaver95:

that's why I don't blame this doctor for wanting to keep his name out of it.


I'm not sure gender was ever established in the article. I kinda leaned male at first too, had to re-read it.
 
2012-03-20 09:03:34 PM  

sno man: Weaver95:

that's why I don't blame this doctor for wanting to keep his name out of it.

I'm not sure gender was ever established in the article. I kinda leaned male at first too, had to re-read it.


I assumed male because I needed a pronoun that fit the sentence structure.
 
2012-03-20 09:07:36 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: MorrisBird: Hi, doctor! Lawyer here. Why are you anonymous? Where is the AMA arguing against this, because I'm hearing crickets? Your cowardice is noted. Thanks for your help. Love, Women.

Maybe he doesn't want James O'Keefe types catching him "breaking the law" on a hidden camera.


FTFY
 
2012-03-20 09:12:28 PM  
Could a doctor sue the government for being forced to rape patients?
 
2012-03-20 09:13:54 PM  

GAT_00: Could a doctor sue the government for being forced to rape patients?


they could testify before congress about it...but they risk being called a 'slut' by Rush Limbaugh.
 
2012-03-20 09:15:36 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: Could a doctor sue the government for being forced to rape patients?

they could testify before congress about it...but they risk being called a 'slut' by Rush Limbaugh.


I'm trying to figure out just how many levels that is wrong on.
 
2012-03-20 09:17:44 PM  

SilentStrider: Weaver95: GAT_00: Could a doctor sue the government for being forced to rape patients?

they could testify before congress about it...but they risk being called a 'slut' by Rush Limbaugh.

I'm trying to figure out just how many levels that is wrong on.


I'll do the math once I stop laughing.
 
2012-03-20 09:21:04 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Lionel Mandrake: MorrisBird: Hi, doctor! Lawyer here. Why are you anonymous? Where is the AMA arguing against this, because I'm hearing crickets? Your cowardice is noted. Thanks for your help. Love, Women.

Maybe he doesn't want James O'Keefe types catching him "breaking the law" on a hidden camera.

FTFY


If the bill passes it's not "breaking the law," it's breaking the law.

As much as it sucks.
 
2012-03-20 09:21:11 PM  

thomps: nice try doc, but i'm pretty sure they're passing a jobs bill amendment that would require the transvaginal ultrasounds to be performed by homeless drifters anyway.


This is why you're my favorite. :)
 
2012-03-20 09:22:48 PM  

Weaver95: sno man: Weaver95:

that's why I don't blame this doctor for wanting to keep his name out of it.

I'm not sure gender was ever established in the article. I kinda leaned male at first too, had to re-read it.

I assumed male because I needed a pronoun that fit the sentence structure.


No worries here, just curious we all default male, is all. Like any one of the recent parenting books that flip he for she and back about five times in each story... Stop! Pick one and go with it.
 
2012-03-20 09:24:19 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: If the bill passes it's not "breaking the law," it's breaking the law.

As much as it sucks.


To fear James O'Keefe (and his lot) you'd have to first show they have any sort of history that indicates they're able to conduct investigations that result in actual crimes being committed by those they are "investigating". Instead, they've basically shown they can use Adobe Premier.

Thus "breaking the law".

The guy's been found guilty of more violations than he's shown others to commit.
 
2012-03-20 09:34:19 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Lionel Mandrake: If the bill passes it's not "breaking the law," it's breaking the law.

As much as it sucks.

To fear James O'Keefe (and his lot) you'd have to first show they have any sort of history that indicates they're able to conduct investigations that result in actual crimes being committed by those they are "investigating". Instead, they've basically shown they can use Adobe Premier.

Thus "breaking the law".

The guy's been found guilty of more violations than he's shown others to commit.


I'm not talking about O'Keefe. I'm saying that if the Doctor is, by law, required to perform this procedure and proof is provided that he didn't, and he fudged it to seem like he did, he is clearly breaking the law.
 
2012-03-20 09:38:21 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I'm saying that if the Doctor is, by law, required to perform this procedure and proof is provided that he didn't, and he fudged it to seem like he did, he is clearly breaking the law.


good luck proving that in court. and even if you DO prove it in court, good luck getting a conviction.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report