135
This is how you get doctors to leave and your citizens to die of preventable diseases.
On one hand, I'm like:
Fuck em. Its what they constantly vote for, so let the stupid bastards take themselves out
On the other:
There are a lot of non stupid people who will be affected by the doctors leaving.
Also, there are the children of complete dumbfucks to think about. Even if they are smarter than their parents, they'll be subjected to this lunacy.
This law doesn't really restrict what doctors do. If anything it gives doctors more power.
It restricts hospitals and pharmacies, basically preventing them from vetoing prescriptions from idiot doctors.
Honestly that's worse because pharmacists catch a lot of doctor screw ups.
They can still catch screw ups (check to confirm if the doctor really wants something). But if the doctor insists that they want it, then the hospital/pharmacy has to provide it.
I appreciate the nuance. I suspect it still puts doctors on a difficult position though, when patients can basically go to their physician and demand that they poison them.
Tbh I’m really beginning to think that the whole “fuck around, find out” thing needs to just play out in cases like this. I know people will be hurt. But like… if the patient insists on a stupid fucking medication that’s not going to help, and will instead have catastrophic side effects… you know, you do you, I guess. The people who will actually leverage this law are, shall we say, not swimming in the deep end of the gene pool. This is very definitely Darwin Award territory. I’m genuinely having difficulty mustering any sympathy for people who are so thoroughly idiotic.
Or you could read the article, I dunno
That title is misleading. The article says doctors can write prescriptions for off-label treatments with patients permission.
You're right:
Under the bill, a prescriber can write a prescription for off-label use of a drug as long as they have the patient’s permission,
...
They are not required to administer off-label medication if they have an “objective, good faith, and scientific” objection to the drug being used for anything other than what it is intended for, or if a pharmacist has documented that a patient is allergic to the drug or it could cause a life-threatening drug interaction.
“objective, good faith, and scientific” objection to the drug being used for anything other than what it is intended for
That should be a fair standard, except that this is legislation being pushed specifically because objective, good faith, scientific objections were preventing people from getting the ineffective treatments they wanted after embracing right wing conspiracy theories and rejecting actual medical advice. Because this is a requirement and not merely a shield for those doctors who do choose to prescribe a requested medication, the determination for what is and is not a valid objection is not left to the doctor but to whatever body would be adjudication a dispute.
The article doesn't say what the potential penalty is for refusing, so I'm not sure if this is something that could result in criminal charges, lawsuits, or which might come up on malpractice cases. But I know I wouldn't want my future to be dependent on my ability to convince a judge and/or jury that my objections are sufficiently grounded in science. Especially not in a state where a majority have seemingly decided that they know more about medicine than doctors and scientists.
It says that but further in it implies the doctor needs a reason to say no by giving reasons a doctor can say no. Good news though, feeling it violates their morals, ethics, or religion is a reason. Since it's or, any good doctor with morals is probably going to use that.
I wonder if this also covers HRT
You know what, that's an interesting (and I'm betting unintended) consequence
maybe even contraceptives and Plan B or medical variants of recreational drugs 😆 🍿
Read the actual bill a little now. Of course it explicitly excludes HRT and potentially other things.
😮 Thanks for the update
That's not what it says.
Under the proposed law, a doctor can prescribe a drug (or not) as they already do. It requires hospitals to dispense the drug if a doctor prescribed it (exception: the usual religious nonsense).
Currently hospitals can refuse to fill a prescription under some circumstances, if they disagree with the doctor.
Okay so reading these is hard because of all the subsections and references to other laws, but it trying to read it, everything is complicated. Not exactly. If the patient has any prescription from anywhere, as long as it falls into the fda specifications etc etc they must allow it to be administered no matter what, but they don't have to do the administration or dispensing. A doctor from outside and medicine from outside must be allowed in. If I'm reading the bill right, which is hard. Cudos to the news source for linking the bill.
So it's really just giving legal shelter to quack doctors.
Not exactly. It's taking away a guardrail that protects patients from quacks. If that results in a bad outcome, the quack is still responsible.
I'd like 1 heroin, some ketamine, all the weed and how about you throw in some acid. I'm asking for off label use for my tummy ache.
Pharmacists, hospitals or inpatient facilities don’t have to issue drugs for off-label use if they have a “moral, ethical, or religious belief or conviction” that conflicts with dispensing a medication off label.
They are not required to administer off-label medication if they have an “objective, good faith, and scientific” objection to the drug being used for anything other than what it is intended for, or if a pharmacist has documented that a patient is allergic to the drug or it could cause a life-threatening drug interaction.
Ok, so this bill seems like a bunch of stupid BS that basically allows quacks to prescribe stuff that they they’ve probably already been prescribing.
Finally, someone's taking the science out of medicine. /s
Science is for elitists.
But what if poisoning stupid people is against the doctor's religious beliefs?
Haha asking the real questions right here
You know, this could be used as a win for HRT. Demand treatment for your depression.
I'll take a double Laudanum please
I’ll have what he’s having. And can I get a different pillow? Do you have, like, a mushier one?
At least this is self selecting. Those patients won't be with us much longer to continue fucking shit up.
Ivermectin, when taken long term instead of the one off it's meant as, builds up in the system into a neurotoxin.
Can you then sue the hospital for giving you these drugs when they don't work?
The Idiots are winning
Looks like frontal lobotomy is back on the menu, boys!
What's next, They gonna criminalize and make drs renounce their medical Hippocratic Oaths?
Literally already happening in states with abortion bans without exceptions
Do they even still take those any more? Seriously asking; I thought that was an anachronism?
Pretty sure its why they have a hard time recruting drs for lethal injections
Good start for assisted death. People should choose how they go.
Except doctors have this teeny tiny oath to like not hurt people or some shit. This will cause a majority of them to refuse care causing a huge uproar about conservatives being denied care. It's in place to whitewash refusing care for religious reasons or because Texas hates women etc etc.
Ohioians demand the right to shit themselves!
You dumb motherfuckers.
The headline is misleading. Yes, at face value the measure does what it says it does, but the details allow doctors to refuse to administer treatments for a wide variety of reasons.
The headline says hospitals. And they would be forced by this bill to administer ivermectin
Our health system is going to be completely fucked by the time donvict's Idiocracy campaign is done with it. That's if we have a country left.
I know people who cured themselves of Covid by snorting potassium cyanide!
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
135 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2249 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS