this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
135 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2725 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 99 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This is how you get doctors to leave and your citizens to die of preventable diseases.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Honestly that's worse because pharmacists catch a lot of doctor screw ups.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Or you could read the article, I dunno

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (3 children)

That title is misleading. The article says doctors can write prescriptions for off-label treatments with patients permission.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

“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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I wonder if this also covers HRT

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You know what, that's an interesting (and I'm betting unintended) consequence

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

maybe even contraceptives and Plan B or medical variants of recreational drugs 😆 🍿

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Read the actual bill a little now. Of course it explicitly excludes HRT and potentially other things.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

😮 Thanks for the update

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So it's really just giving legal shelter to quack doctors.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Finally, someone's taking the science out of medicine. /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Science is for elitists.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But what if poisoning stupid people is against the doctor's religious beliefs?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Haha asking the real questions right here

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

You know, this could be used as a win for HRT. Demand treatment for your depression.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'll take a double Laudanum please

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I’ll have what he’s having. And can I get a different pillow? Do you have, like, a mushier one?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

The Idiots are winning

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Can you then sue the hospital for giving you these drugs when they don't work?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Looks like frontal lobotomy is back on the menu, boys!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

What's next, They gonna criminalize and make drs renounce their medical Hippocratic Oaths?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Literally already happening in states with abortion bans without exceptions

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do they even still take those any more? Seriously asking; I thought that was an anachronism?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Pretty sure its why they have a hard time recruting drs for lethal injections

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good start for assisted death. People should choose how they go.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Ohioians demand the right to shit themselves!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

You dumb motherfuckers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

The headline says hospitals. And they would be forced by this bill to administer ivermectin

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I know people who cured themselves of Covid by snorting potassium cyanide!