"pre-pregnant"
May. 17th, 2006 09:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellio![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
amergina posted a link to
the 30-page report
from the CDC, which I haven't gotten to load yet but I'm caching
the link for future reference.
Recognizing that this is (currently) a limited recommendation, I am still fearful of where this could go. It's a small step from "recommend" to "require"; even if the government doesn't formally require, will doctors follow the recommendation to stay on the right side of malpractice claims and future federal action? Will many (or most) pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs to treat actual ailments for fear of harming a hypothetical fetus (even if the woman says "if impregnated I will not carry to term")? Will restaurants and bars start refusing to serve alcohol to women? Will employers keep women out of jobs with environmental hazards? No, not immediately, but we shouldn't ignore it any more than we should ignore other dangerous trends oozing from Washington (and Washington's handlers).
Women are not incubators. It is hubris for anyone not directly involved to expect women to restrict ourselves for the sake of children we're not necessarily even planning to have. If, heaven forbid, I come down with some serious illness, I want the best treatment available -- regardless of what it could do were I to become pregnant. [1] I will listen to my doctor's advice about things like alcohol, diet, and exercise for my own sake (that's part of what I pay him for), but acting on it is my decision alone, morally speaking, and it's insulting to say "think of the baby!" rather than "think of your own health!". ('Cause, I suppose, we aren't smart enough to want to take care of ourselves, but we're programmed to love babies. Bzzt.)
By all means -- make patients aware of the effects of their choices and treatment options on hypothetical future children if they care about this. That's being a good doctor. So long as we stay in the space of recommendations from doctors to patients, we're fine. But I fear the slope before us -- that it will not stay between doctors and patients, and that it will not stay as mere recommendations. And I don't know what the best way to prevent a slide down that slope is.
[1] Ok, I am not personally capable of becoming pregnant, but that is irrelevant to my point.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 03:34 am (UTC)Some years ago, after a camping trip, I saw symptoms consistent with Lyme Disease, most significantly the distinctive rash. I saw my doctor two days later, by which time the rash had faded. I told him about my symptoms and the camping trip, and he was convinced that it was not Lyme. (All symptoms other than the rash are consistent with the flu, though I should note that it was August.) I insisted that he do the blood test, and he grudginging agreed.
It took about a week for the results to come back (he warned me of that). I got a phone call from a surprised-sounding doctor saying "you have Lyme". I said ok, what are we going to do about it? He named a drug and a dosage, and I named the other drug commonly prescribed for Lyme and asked him to compare them. I also asked if the dosage wasn't a bit low. I did all of this politely and respectfully; I'm sure doctors have to put up with a lot of pompous smart-asses and I was not trying to go down that path. Anyway, it was almost as if I heard the "pop" of the lightbulb going off; he gave me a fairly thorough explanation of the trade-offs between the two, how dosages are computed, and how we would evaluate the treatment, and after that he never, ever gave me the "there there dear, it's ok" treatment again. He is still my doctor.
(This all happened pre-web, but in that week between test and diagnosis, and aided by a friend in the health-care industry, I did some research.)