Join 3,438 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Pro-Life Medicine, Whether you Like it or Not
January 20, 2009 12:31 PM   Subscribe

A clinic nurse first removed her intrauterine birth-control device without permission, says the patient in a federal action, then told her that "having the IUD come out was a good thing," because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."
posted by tehloki (119 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

 
Okay, before anything starts, can we just all agree that the clinic nurse is crazier than an crazy shithouse rat being fed a steady diet of Crazy Pills?
posted by The Whelk at 12:39 PM on January 20, 2009 [51 favorites]


The clinic nurse is also a babysitter, so it's cool. Just have the kid(s), and she'll take care of them. Won't she?
posted by filthy light thief at 12:40 PM on January 20, 2009


"Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'"

what
posted by padraigin at 12:40 PM on January 20, 2009 [35 favorites]


Don't worry-- we have a new president now. A good president. Stuff like this won't happen anymore. It's in the past; drop it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:41 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


"Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'

This was the part that got me....so she has a history of this and the clinic appears to not have done anything? Nice place..
posted by LunaticFringe at 12:41 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


If only we were a nation of non believers.
posted by plexi at 12:42 PM on January 20, 2009 [12 favorites]


Guess I"m not the only one who liked that line :)
posted by LunaticFringe at 12:42 PM on January 20, 2009


Can she actually sue for this?
posted by chugg at 12:44 PM on January 20, 2009


chugg: The nurse has done it repeatedly, so she's either chronically negligent or guilty of deliberate medical misconduct. Both leave open the possibility of a lawsuit.
posted by tehloki at 12:45 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


Everyone always laughs and tells me I post these inane comments on purpose, but it's not true, they accidentally appear when I click 'post comment'.
posted by Dumsnill at 12:45 PM on January 20, 2009 [37 favorites]


Can she actually sue for this?

IANAL, but I do have an IUD, and I don't think you want one removed unless you want it removed, if you see what I'm saying. It doesn't tickle.

The personal opinion expressed by the nurse is just literally adding insult to injury.

Plus, it's not even true.
posted by padraigin at 12:46 PM on January 20, 2009


"They accidentally come out when I tug"? Is that like, "I didn't mean to beat my wife, she accidentally bled when I punched her?"

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with this country when someone who is obviously far too stupid to even make up excuses of plausible deniability is allowed to perform medicine?

At the very least she should be stripped of her certifications, but I hope she sees real jail time. You don't fuck with someone's body like that.
posted by explosion at 12:47 PM on January 20, 2009 [8 favorites]


I don't know, I could do with some crazy pills once in a while.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:49 PM on January 20, 2009


She also dosen't believe in eating meat and reaches down people's throats to pull meals out of their stomach.

(this lady seems to be that level of crazy)
posted by jonmc at 12:51 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


{mouth agape in horror}
I cannot think of an appropriate response to this.
"WHAT?!?!" Is about as close as I can get.
posted by dogmom at 12:52 PM on January 20, 2009 [4 favorites]


I agree that she should go to prison. I also think there are much bigger arseholes out there
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 12:53 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


(The plaintiff) felt a distinct pulling on the strings followed by a sharp pain in her uterus similar to a very strong menstrual cramp.

Jesus. Where was this nurse's supervisor after repeated incidents of this?
posted by zippy at 12:53 PM on January 20, 2009


I accidentally the whole nurse.
posted by fleetmouse at 12:55 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


These things can happen. Once, after reading my grandfather's will, I accidentally removed his pacemaker.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:57 PM on January 20, 2009 [12 favorites]


Can she actually sue for this?

Yes, and she should. Basically, you are violating my rights when you unilaterally choose to infringe on MY rights to have the type of birth control I want. Could you sue if someone snipped you without permission? I think so.
posted by Medieval Maven at 12:58 PM on January 20, 2009


OW, you fucking asshole! OW!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:00 PM on January 20, 2009 [7 favorites]


I don't even see there being a whole lot to talk about here. So I'm just going to post this one comment saying that.
posted by kingbenny at 1:01 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


To tell you the truth, I'm kind of amazed that she's only just now getting in trouble. At the very least, you have to figure she'd have been fired out of liability/malpractice concerns.
posted by jonmc at 1:04 PM on January 20, 2009


Sue?

Performing unauthorized medical procedures without consent is assault. Unless you can prove to me that removal of an IUD is required to save an unresponsive patients life, I would like to know exactly why this person is not in custody.
posted by eriko at 1:04 PM on January 20, 2009 [7 favorites]


"Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'"

Hah hah, the office thinks it's such a funny joke. So funny.
posted by Pants! at 1:05 PM on January 20, 2009 [4 favorites]


"They accidentally come out when I tug"


She would have to "tug" pretty hard. And "tugging" an IUD through the opening of the cervix would hurt a WHOLE LOT.

That's a lot of trouble to go through for an "accident."
posted by louche mustachio at 1:06 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


What the bloodclot? How has this lady not be sued before?
posted by chunking express at 1:07 PM on January 20, 2009


Well, if nobody else will step up and defend this brave woman for actually having the guts to act on her beliefs, then let me-- damn, nope. Can't do it. Fingers just lock up.
posted by rokusan at 1:07 PM on January 20, 2009


This is my "Ow. My balls!"
posted by louche mustachio at 1:08 PM on January 20, 2009


In the grand scheme, I don't think this wackjob's actions have much to do with abortion or religious/moral belief. She's one of those crazed criminal "angel of mercy" types, and if she weren't yanking out IUDs, she'd be injecting elderly patients with lethal amounts of potassium or sending sick babies to Jesus or something.

Is it wrong that I sort of wish someone would yank out not the IUD but the vocal cords of that woman on the IUD commercial who "got a job, moved to Memphis, finished a book, finished a sentence, etc.?"

Yeah, I know it's wrong.

posted by FelliniBlank at 1:10 PM on January 20, 2009


Oh my god, that nurse is a nightmare! After she "accidentally" pulled it out (OW), I would have "accidentally" kicked her in the face.
posted by chowflap at 1:10 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

RAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWRRR.
posted by The Straightener at 1:14 PM on January 20, 2009 [10 favorites]


"Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'



You'd think after a while she'd take a continuing education course or something to learn not how to do that. Maybe try something other than the tugging?
posted by anitanita at 1:19 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


In all seriousness, this is a very bad thing. Pulling it out, making it clear that it wasn't really an accident, yet also claiming it was (so insulting her intelligence), and then refusing to put it back in and demanding she take a pregnancy test.

However, I can think of one way it wouuld be worse: if she managed to pull it out without the patient knowing, and without telling the patient that she'd done it.
posted by davejay at 1:23 PM on January 20, 2009


so insulting her the patient's intelligence
posted by davejay at 1:24 PM on January 20, 2009


Yikes. Clicking through to the PDF reveals that she was in there to have the strings on the IUD shortened.

I hope Sylvia Olona's prior career was not as a moyle.
posted by SpiffyRob at 1:26 PM on January 20, 2009 [4 favorites]


Her laughing it off and the post-yanking chit-chat are giving me the willies.

Kathy Bates' agent needs to get on the phone and secure this role.
posted by CKmtl at 1:26 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


Can she actually sue for this?

She's interfering with a medical device based on her personal beliefs. This is no different to a chemist replacing your heart medication with sugar pills. It's even arguable, I imagine, that it's performing a medical procedure without consent. Absolutely the woman harmed by this ought to sue.

The fact the clinic knows this has happened repeatedly makes it a legitimate target as well, frankly. The nurse should not be allowed to practise medicine again and the clinic should be out of business.

In the grand scheme, I don't think this wackjob's actions have much to do with abortion or religious/moral belief.

You keep telling yourself that.
posted by rodgerd at 1:31 PM on January 20, 2009


There's a slang word in the English language for female genitalia beginning with "c" that I don't like hearing used unless it's in a porn movie, but I'm having trouble not using it to describe this so-called "nurse."
posted by illiad at 1:33 PM on January 20, 2009 [3 favorites]


Accidents.......

Two old men get together every morning for coffee. One day Joe says to James...

"Ever go to say something, and something completely different comes out of your mouth?"

What do you mean? says James

Well, the other day I was at the airport and the girl at the ticket counter was very well-endowed. I meant to ask for two tickets to Pittsburg, but I ended up asking for two pickets to tittsburg."

"Oh, I know what you mean" says James. "The other night at dinner I meant to ask my wife to pass the butter, but instead I wound up saying 'You bitch, you've ruined my life."
posted by lalochezia at 1:37 PM on January 20, 2009 [18 favorites]


As someone who's put in and removed a fair number of IUD's, as well as done some string shortening, I feel I can state with some confidence that "gentle pulling" on the strings is abso-fucking-lutely unnecessary when cutting the strings. It's pretty simple: you visualize the strings, then you reach in and cut them - no touching of the strings by anything other than a very sharp pair of scissors is required.

Anyone who puts any traction at all on the strings of an IUD has one clear purpose in mind.
posted by thelaze at 1:41 PM on January 20, 2009 [14 favorites]


There's a slang word in the English language for female genitalia beginning with "c" that I don't like hearing used unless it's in a porn movie, but I'm having trouble not using it to describe this so-called "nurse."

cuckoo?
posted by orme at 1:42 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'm guessing that nurse won't be having any abortion donuts then...
posted by lullaby at 1:44 PM on January 20, 2009


I also agree with those posters who have labelled this assault. Any action taken on a patient by a health care provider against their will (excluding emergency measure or situations when the patient is declared not capable of consenting) is without question assault.

Not only could this woman sue, but she could press criminal charges.
posted by thelaze at 1:54 PM on January 20, 2009


I accidentally your IUD.

Someone needs to put this woman's picture beside "passive-aggressive" in the DSM.
posted by adipocere at 1:56 PM on January 20, 2009


These jerkoffs are not as rare as you would like to think, and just as likely have an MD. I witnessed all kinds of drive-by proselytizing in residency. In all likelihood she'll lose her license and can go work the phones somewhere far away.
posted by docpops at 1:57 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


This is a bad fpp. We need some more context for this to be a fruitful discussion.
posted by sid at 1:59 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


sid: This is a bad fpp. We need some more context for this to be a fruitful discussion.

Sorry, can't do that. I just pulled the IUD on this post. Didn't mean to; I was just fiddling with it. Wanna know my take? No? I'll tell you anyway.
posted by not_on_display at 2:02 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


This is a bad fpp. We need some more context for this to be a fruitful discussion.

Um, yeah. Unless there's some supporting information to show that this was more than one whackjob who deserved to lose her license, of what value is this post beyond a 'news of the weird' segment?
posted by mattholomew at 2:04 PM on January 20, 2009


Her poor cervix:(
posted by BabySeven at 2:05 PM on January 20, 2009


Yes, she can, in fact sue. This hit the news because of the lawsuit, it seems:
The plaintiff demands damages for battery, constitutional violations and negligence.
I note that "battery" is right there up front, where it belongs.
posted by Karmakaze at 2:05 PM on January 20, 2009


"Nurse"? Meaning "office nurse" aka medical assistant? If so, she is not a nurse. LPN, RN, ARNP? These are the important questions. Most "nurses" in doctor's offices and clinics are not nurses, they are medical assistants that get OJT or take a short course on how to take blood pressure, etc.. FWIW, I am a Registered Nurse.
posted by 6:1 at 2:06 PM on January 20, 2009


I'm getting cramps just reading about this! Mentally and in the inner-uterine regions.
posted by wowbobwow at 2:06 PM on January 20, 2009


6:1, the article refers to her as a nurse-practitioner.
posted by CKmtl at 2:09 PM on January 20, 2009


I just read the complaint (it's up on pacer, will be on justia soon enough). Seems pretty open-and-shut. What could have made this interesting is a discussion of the "liberty of conscience" regulations DHS just put into place as part of Bush's midnight regulations that serve as a giveaway to the far right that went into effect Sunday night. I wonder if she's going to raise that as a defense, which wouldn't affect a civil suit but might prevent her from being fired.
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:14 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'd like to know this nurse's reaction if she brought her car to a repair place and the guy working on it accidentally cut her brake lines. He could say something like

"the Mechanic stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I sever these on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally leak out when I saw them with my knife.'"

He then could have warned her by saying: "I personally do not like brakes. I feel they are a type of speed impediment. I don't know how you feel about going slow, but I am against it."

Ok, it's a bad analogy...

Airbags! It's like the mechanic removed her airbags. No?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that unwanted car accidents are bad.
posted by quin at 2:15 PM on January 20, 2009 [3 favorites]


Obviously, into the jail she goes. For future reference: she isn't a big romance reader, is she?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 2:21 PM on January 20, 2009


Yeah, this is probably a crime, and she's also civilly liable. There may also be licensing problems, and the clinic may be liable as well. Yawn. Crazy people will sometimes commit assault for stupid, scary reasons. So long as the system deals with it properly, I don't think it's interesting.
posted by grobstein at 2:25 PM on January 20, 2009


sid, mattholomew: What do you have against "news of the weird" segments? They're pretty common here.
posted by tehloki at 2:27 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


My sister-in-law is a practicing ob-gyn and a absolutist right-to-lifer. She had agreed with a pregnant patient that when she did the patient's C-section that she would either also tie her tubes or, if she couldn't go through with it for moral reasons, she would call in a partner who would do it. She did the C-section and decided neither to tie the tubes nor call in a partner. For this, she lost her privileges at the hospital and was fired from her practice. As much as I love her, she deserved this. She was lucky she wasn't sued by her patient or jailed for battery herself.

This kind of arrogant behavior is a function of the absolutist view of morality and relegates women to a lesser role than their ova, fertilized or not. Until some hard time is served, this shit will continue. "Pro-lifers" believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. I love that line.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:27 PM on January 20, 2009 [48 favorites]


Here's the complaint. Is there really a substantive due process right to birth control?
posted by footnote at 2:30 PM on January 20, 2009


Help a man understand how you'd normally remove an IUD. Thanks.
posted by boo_radley at 2:32 PM on January 20, 2009


Oh HELL no. You do not just go around "gently tugging" on people's IUD strings without any kind of warning. This would be akin to just wandering around brutally yanking on people's nutsacks, to my mind.

If this woman is licensed to put her hands on patients, then her license needs to be revoked, pronto.
posted by palomar at 2:33 PM on January 20, 2009


Here's the complaint. Is there really a substantive due process right to birth control?

Isn't that a standard reading of Griswold and Roe?
posted by grobstein at 2:37 PM on January 20, 2009


allen.spaulding: I wonder if she's going to raise [the "liberty of conscience" regulation] as a defense, which wouldn't affect a civil suit but might prevent her from being fired.

Could it? Opting out of performing a procedure strikes me as a very different thing than reversing a procedure that has already been performed by somebody else.
posted by CKmtl at 2:44 PM on January 20, 2009


Can she actually sue for this?

I love how everyone responding to this question tries to construct some intricate legal argument about medical procedures and whatnot.

Yes, she can sue for this. It's battery. It's legally equivalent to me grabbing your head and smashing it into a wall. Which is what I would have done to the nurse had I been the patient.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:47 PM on January 20, 2009


Wasn't Griswold based on a privacy interest stemming from a penumbra? This complaint says it's a liberty interest.
posted by footnote at 2:47 PM on January 20, 2009


Help a man understand how you'd normally remove an IUD. Thanks.

It's easy.
posted by gman at 2:50 PM on January 20, 2009


Help a man understand how you'd normally remove an IUD. Thanks.

Essentially you do just tug on the strings until the IUD comes out. It's typically pretty simple and only takes a few seconds. I often liken it to pulling out a tampon when I'm describing it to a patient, except obviously it's in the uterus not the vagina. The device is designed to have arms that fold up easily to allow it to be pulled through the cervix. It's a little uncomfortable, but fast and any woman will tend you it's a lot easier coming out then being put in.

It's because it can be so easily removed that one has to be super careful doing anything with the strings, as these suckers do sometimes come out on their own. That's why as I said above, there's no way any responsible health care worker would tug, however "gently", on the strings and expect nothing to come of it.
posted by thelaze at 2:59 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


What could have made this interesting is a discussion of the "liberty of conscience" regulations DHS just put into place as part of Bush's midnight regulations that serve as a giveaway to the far right that went into effect Sunday night.

This post over at Reproductive Health Reality Check does just that.
posted by keever at 3:00 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


Thank you, thelaze. From previous comments, I was expecting something a little more complicated, or that the device was snug enough that it'd hurt if yanked on.
posted by boo_radley at 3:02 PM on January 20, 2009


Metafilter: wandering around brutally yanking on people's nutsacks.
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:05 PM on January 20, 2009 [8 favorites]


I accidentally my entire foot in your ass.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:13 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


Her poor cervix

Great band.
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:16 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


illiad
When I used to work on the phones, we referred to that as "the word I'm allowed to use once a year", right before we threw the headset, and this would be justified as the once a year usage.
I can't see any way this is not some kind of assault, but IANAL or AD.
posted by unrepentanthippie at 3:22 PM on January 20, 2009


It's pretty simple: you visualize the strings, then you reach in and cut them - no touching of the strings by anything other than a very sharp pair of scissors is required.

Am I the only one completely freaked out by this image? I think the only thing that wigs me out more than the thought of having a sharp pair of scissors inside me is the thought have having to put scissors inside someone else.

As a man, I have no real concept of this, but I feel like getting accidentally nicked on the inside would be horrible.
posted by heathkit at 3:49 PM on January 20, 2009


From the comment section over at keever's link:
One nurse I ran into once wouldn't take my BP cause I had an abortion and she saw that in my file. These HHS rules scare me cause that was two years ago what would happen to that nurse now under these HHS regs?


Dear Liz,

I am quite literally appalled by what you have reported here, though to some degree I can't say I am surprised anymore. How is it that a nurse decides not to take your blood pressure--a routine medical check that provides basic, critical information and helps identify potentially life-threatening conditions? Because you once had an abortion? In other words, there was no action involved here from what I can see that indicates a "conscienctious objection" in that moment...no "abortion activity" in which this provider was asked to be engaged.

Instead, this provider decided to withold care in a form of retroactive rebuke for a lawful, legal, moral, private decision you made at some point in the past.

This is precisely the problem. Through both the new HHS rule and through the lax enforcement of critical standards and medical ethics in at least some places before this we are encouraging people who clearly do not understand their larger obligations to take both law and medicine into their own hands.
This chills my blood. Will some health providers taking the position that the new HHS regulations give them extreme latitude to do any damn thing they feel like? Is it possible there will be punative actions taken against those who have had documented abortions? Just what we need to make our visits to the gynecologist's office so much more pleasant-- bringing the cultural wars into the doctor's office and up on the treatment table where we lay with spread legs in a defenseless posture.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:06 PM on January 20, 2009 [10 favorites]


Someone needs to put this woman's picture beside "passive-aggressive" in the DSM.

Minus the "passive."
posted by decagon at 4:07 PM on January 20, 2009


And here is a detailed complaint submitted to the court: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/01/14/IUD.pdf


Sigh.
posted by anitanita at 4:15 PM on January 20, 2009


According to an MD on another message board, IUDs can indeed 'pop out' in response to gentle tugging on the string, in a very small number of cases. It usually indicates a bad fit to start with, and it would probably be ineffective anyway. So 'popping out' is rare but unknown.

However, in the case crazy-nurse, repeat instances indicate willful removal, not an accident, if tugging on the strings is indicated at all, which it apparently isn't in the case of shortening the strings.
posted by fatbird at 4:17 PM on January 20, 2009


"rare but [not] unknown", that is.
posted by fatbird at 4:17 PM on January 20, 2009


Require clinics and practitioners to state whether they are right-wing Christians (Christian fundies already publish lists of religiously correct businesses, schools, and services). I've already made up my mind never to go to a Catholic hospital, unless I'm severely injured in a car accident and there is no other hospital within fifty miles.
posted by bad grammar at 4:17 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


I've read a lot of legal type news stories over the years, and I've never seen one where I thought to myself, yeah, a million-billion dollars in punative damages makes sense to me in this case.

Until now.
posted by tiamat at 4:19 PM on January 20, 2009 [3 favorites]


What is ALBUQUERQUE (CN)? I'm assuming Albuquerque N.M. but what does CN mean?
posted by pianomover at 5:03 PM on January 20, 2009


The (CN) would be Courthouse News, just as sometimes you see (AP) after the dateline for Associated Press articles.
posted by rewil at 5:34 PM on January 20, 2009


"Nurse"? Meaning "office nurse" aka medical assistant? If so, she is not a nurse. LPN, RN, ARNP? These are the important questions. Most "nurses" in doctor's offices and clinics are not nurses, they are medical assistants that get OJT or take a short course on how to take blood pressure, etc.. FWIW, I am a Registered Nurse.


6:1, the article refers to her as a nurse-practitioner.


Actually, she's a Physician's Assistant. According to some reading I've been doing on this, Olona hasn't been licensed as a nurse since 1976.
posted by dancinglamb at 5:54 PM on January 20, 2009


Hopefully, this woman's suit will proceed and she will prevail in court. Then, woman who did this will be barred from working in any medical establishment. Ever.
posted by DWRoelands at 6:09 PM on January 20, 2009


"Performing unauthorized medical procedures without consent is assault. Unless you can prove to me that removal of an IUD is required to save an unresponsive patients life, I would like to know exactly why this person is not in custody."

This.

Even in the (in my opinion very peculiar) situation that what happens around an IUD to prevent pregnancy is murder or prevents the death of "an unresponsive patient", that isn't actually happening unless again in a very philosophically convoluted chain of argument the patient is about to have sex. Like right now. With no option to converse and persuade her otherwise that guy is about to dive right in there.

It's just not even right even in the case where a single cell is a human life, because there isn't one in imminent danger.

Or if you think it is right, you'd better chop my arms off in case I later accidentally suffocate someone with them.
posted by edd at 6:10 PM on January 20, 2009


Secret Life of Gravy, After hearing similar stories from multiple people, I think it's a safe bet that if one has had an abortion, one should not mention it to one's medical professionals unless one knows that they will not take vindictive action against you.

How fucked up is that?

I agree that if this law is not stopped in its tracks, then anyone who is likely to object to a legal procedure should be forced to post it on their door, website and auxiliary materials. My life is more important than their belief in invisible angry sky beings.
posted by dejah420 at 6:13 PM on January 20, 2009


A Physician's Assistant is NOT a nurse! Go after PA board of that state for corrective action!
posted by 6:1 at 7:31 PM on January 20, 2009


I should write a short story about a future in which all health care is factionalized, radicalized, and free to act according to their moral beliefs. Go to one wrong kind of doctor, and you get mysteriously pregnant if they think you don't have enough children. Go to the other kind and get mysteriously sterilized if they think you've had too many.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:34 PM on January 20, 2009 [3 favorites]


You know who likes Christians? The lions do.
posted by mds35 at 7:34 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


I kinda want to throw up now. . .
posted by rubah at 7:38 PM on January 20, 2009


Thank you, thelaze. From previous comments, I was expecting something a little more complicated, or that the device was snug enough that it'd hurt if yanked on.

Oh, it hurts, alright. That's why I'm sure that if a woman were to have one intentionally removed she'd get anaesthesia rather than just having the doctor go "yank!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:59 PM on January 20, 2009


If this woman is licensed to put her hands on patients, then her license needs to be revoked, pronto.

Someone should gently tug and accidentally revoke her license.


This woman, who is supposed to be a medical professional, seriously thinks that an IUD is equal to an abortion, so she removes them without telling patients, an action that could very likely lead to ... actual, real abortions. By this line of thinking, a woman's period could very well be an abortion. This is the type of person who cries and beats her chest about abortion being murder, and stopping a beating heart, when her real motive is clearly to punish people for not believing the same things she does.

Want to make abortion disappear, for real? I do. Dispense with the "life begins at conception" crap. Give us the first five days. Before the blastocyst even attaches to the uterine wall. See, it's not a magical microscopic baby angel straight from Jesus, it's a ball of undifferentiated cells that is more likely than not going to fail to develop into an embryo anyway. Within that time period, an IUD or RU486 could be effective. Make these available to any woman who needs them, without judging them or asking questions. Make birth control available to anyone who needs it. Teach real sex education again. Stop teaching young women and girls to be disgusted by and afraid of their bodies. Teach them how to respect and defend themselves. Give them the courage to come forward if they've been raped or abused, and protect them. Stop expecting everyone to believe the same things you believe, and to tailor their behavior to YOUR beliefs.

Then I will believe you care more about keeping women from having abortions than you do about punishing them for being women.
posted by louche mustachio at 8:23 PM on January 20, 2009 [26 favorites]


What. I never "accidentally" pull out my tampons, I have to apply a fairly purposeful amount of strength. I'd imagine that it's harder to get an IUD out - something that has fucking hooks to keep it lodged in. Someone please "accidentally" yank the fakenurse's license.
posted by Xere at 9:02 PM on January 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


Hey. Is that the same crazy bitch that yanked out a perfectly good gerbil when I went in for a flu shot?
posted by tkchrist at 9:42 PM on January 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'm waiting for a doctor who just up and drills someone with a large caliber pistol to argue "liberty of conscience".

"The bullets just kind of accidentally come out when I tug on the trigger."
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:21 PM on January 20, 2009


I hate to say this, but what really needs to happen is a punitive damage award so huge that it puts the hospital out of business. I know how nasty that sounds and I don't revel in its implications, but that's the only way this is gonna work.

Hospitals don't take this shit seriously because there's nothing really at stake for them. Sure they get a lawsuit or two, but that's why you carry massive amounts of malpractice insurance and just deal with the employees if they become a big enough problem to show up on your radar. This is the wrong message to send. If other areas of healthcare were subject to the capricious whims of doctors, nurses and pharmacists, the American people would have demanded socialized medicine decades ago and have put a fair number of doctors out of business permanently and in prison for almost as long.

"The people around the office laugh about it because they think you're doing it on purpose?"! What in the name of Dick Cheney's pitch black turds are you talking about? Do you mean to say that they don't recoil in horror when they come under the impression that a colleague is performing unauthorized procedures on patients without fucking telling them? Your coworkers first reactions aren't to call the board of health and the police and then go get a stiff drink because they suspect some of the taint on your soul may have washed off on them?

If a cop suspected that another cop was planting evidence but didn't say anything, he would have IAD up his ass so far their pencils would be sticking out of his mouth! What's that? This woman in just "following her conscience as dictated to her through her faith"? What do you think that crooked cop is doing? He (or she) believes that the guilty ought to be punished, and since those pesky rules of evidence keep getting in the way he's just helping the wheels of justice along a bit. And if you pressed further, I'll bet you something about justice in a religious context would probably pop up. Women's health is one area that, for some weird-ass reason, Americans seem to tolerate incredibly batshit behavior that winds up seriously harming people.

"I don't know how you feel about homosexuality, but I think it's a sin so all in all it's a good thing all that extra testosterone wound up in your son's IV".
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 12:47 AM on January 21, 2009 [5 favorites]


When I first read this, I stared at the screen in horror for a while trying to process that this nurse actually did this.

Not only is it just batshit insane but also, IIRC, removing an IUD incorrectly (uhhh, like randomly tugging at the strings) can potentially make it perforate a woman's uterus and/or cause bleeding which, in turn can cause the uterus to get infected resulting in permanent infertility.

If I were at a doctor's appointment and somebody did this to me I would have trouble not immediately trying to hurt them somehow.
posted by mustcatchmooseandsquirrel at 1:32 AM on January 21, 2009


If I were at a doctor's appointment and somebody did this to me I would have trouble not immediately trying to hurt them somehow.

I wouldn't. I'd be far too angry for that (in addition to being furious about the sex change...).

I'd be angry enough to want (in order): Her job, her supervisor's job, and her chance of ever working with patients again. Once I'd got those then would come actual attempts to hurt her - I'd want to take her sense of self-respect, and her house and car. Possibly also her liberty. Trying to immediately hurt her would be counter-productive, and when I'm utterly furious I get very very cold blooded. Revenge is a dish best served, and all that.
posted by Francis at 2:51 AM on January 21, 2009


To be fair, it's not like the crazy nurse simultaneously whipped out a turkey baster full of semen and tried to impregnate the patients against their will, I'm sure the pro-life usual suspects will explain that there was no real harm done, etc. It's kind of the "Bush kept America safe" line of defense.
posted by matteo at 7:19 AM on January 21, 2009


[comments removed - we blocked the anti-abortion ad URL, feel free to take it up in MeTa or email us if you want more details about how ads work here.]
posted by jessamyn at 7:59 AM on January 21, 2009


To be fair

Yes, let's be sure "to be fair" to the crazy patient-assaulting physician's assistant.
posted by Nelson at 8:06 AM on January 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


As a pro-life MeFite, I can say this nurse's license should be tugged on until it pops out. Ditto for Mental Wimp's relative who appears simply to have lied to a patient's face and promised to perform or secure performance of a procedure. They should face the appropriate civil and criminal consequences of their actions, as Francis suggests.

Yet there is a larger point. These "soldiers" in the culture "war" are the equivalent of a US soldier shooting up a house full of non-combatant civilians during wartime. No sane person accuses all US soldiers of being civilian-killing thugs, hell-bent on the absolute destruction of all quasi-enemies. So why are these dumb medical practitioners' deceitful and illegal actions somehow imputed to the entire pro-life LOLXTIAN community which, almost exclusively (surprising for such a hot-button human rights issue), is a peaceful one? Some people here appear not to be able to distinguish lunatics' renegade actions from legitimate forms of fighting a "war." In the culture war, where pro-lifers are trying to win "hearts and minds," lobbying, arguing, praying, and other lawful means of "fighting" are all well and good; blowing up an abortion clinic or Nurse Haditha's forceful removal of IUDs against someone's will is not.

If medical practitioners are opposed to certain practices, they need to go work somewhere where those practices are not performed. Until they do, screw them and their heavy-handed guerrilla BS.

//overwrought metaphor
posted by resurrexit at 8:10 AM on January 21, 2009 [2 favorites]


So fucking crazy.
posted by Xany at 8:21 AM on January 21, 2009


My sister-in-law is a practicing ob-gyn and a absolutist right-to-lifer. She had agreed with a pregnant patient that when she did the patient's C-section that she would either also tie her tubes or, if she couldn't go through with it for moral reasons, she would call in a partner who would do it. She did the C-section and decided neither to tie the tubes nor call in a partner. For this, she lost her privileges at the hospital and was fired from her practice. As much as I love her, she deserved this. She was lucky she wasn't sued by her patient or jailed for battery herself.

Wha... ? How is tube-tying against her morals? I literally do not understand the reasoning on this. Medically, I mean. Is her position that women should simply not be allowed to render themselves infertile? That they should just accept the fact that pregnancy may happen as often as their body will allow it?
posted by odinsdream at 8:47 AM on January 21, 2009


It is religious reasoning, not medical. It is god's will whether you get pregnant or not, and interfering with that in any way is a sin. By extension, helping someone defy god's will is also a sin. It is the kind of thinking that should lead you to become a preacher, not a nurse.
posted by InfidelZombie at 9:31 AM on January 21, 2009 [1 favorite]


Odinsdream: what InfidelZombie said. Not sure about other Christian churches, but it's Catholic doctrine on contraception 101. You have to give the Holy Spirit a chance to get in! It is downright wrong, so the teaching goes, to seek to exclude the chances of conception by any means other than abstinence. In other words, no free jollies.
posted by tiny crocodile at 9:58 AM on January 21, 2009


To elaborate, for a devout Catholic, every time you have sex there must be a chance of getting pregnant, because God's purpose for sex is not pleasure but pro-creation. So sex without the possiblity of pro-creation is sinful.

They make an exception for people who would like to bear children but clinically can't, through no fault of their own. Of course, following their argument, they shouldn't, and any infertile couples out there have sex are actually sinners.
posted by tiny crocodile at 10:02 AM on January 21, 2009


louche mustachio: I think that you are thinking about the morning after pill, not RU486. The morning after pill prevents ovulation and triggers menstuation. RU486 is an abortifacent, taken when a woman knows that she is definitely pregnant and wants to end it. Otherwise, awesome post.
posted by echolalia67 at 10:03 AM on January 21, 2009


RU486 is also prescribed as an emergency contraceptive. Kinda makes sense, no? Many of the same mechanisms work in both situations.
posted by grobstein at 11:42 AM on January 21, 2009


I believe the best response to this sort of situation is a big, hearty "WTF?".


Also, what exactly is she "tugging" at, and why?
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 12:38 PM on January 21, 2009


It is religious reasoning, not medical. It is god's will whether you get pregnant or not, and interfering with that in any way is a sin. By extension, helping someone defy god's will is also a sin.

Amazing how interfering with God's will is only bad when pregnancy is involved. Plastic surgery? Fine. Antibiotics? A-OK! Etc.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:45 PM on January 21, 2009 [2 favorites]


Also, what exactly is she "tugging" at, and why?

IUDs have little strings on them to facilitate removal and also so yyou can tell they're still in there since the whole deveice sits inside the uterus. Often, you can remove an IUD by tugging on the strings. Sometimes it requires a bit more work than that. If you want to actually see what I'm talking about, there's this video but if you're not looking for in-your-face cervix it may not be for you.
posted by jessamyn at 12:50 PM on January 21, 2009


Well, really, Jessamyn, who isn't? (I kid, I kid). That site is chock full of videos that could have rendered a certain Ask question blowup moot last week, though...
posted by bitter-girl.com at 1:17 PM on January 21, 2009


It is god's will whether you get pregnant or not, and interfering with that in any way is a sin.

Man, Catholics really do believe that God's less powerful than they are, don't they?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:22 PM on January 21, 2009 [2 favorites]


InfidelZombie: It is religious reasoning, not medical. It is god's will whether you get pregnant or not, and interfering with that in any way is a sin. By extension, helping someone defy god's will is also a sin. It is the kind of thinking that should lead you to become a preacher, not a nurse.

Speaking as a religious person, it most certainly is not. Quite aside from the fact that it's my contention that precisely the same type of thinker ought to become a preacher as ought to become a nurse (see Appendix B, "Why are there so many shit preachers out there?") this does not make religious sense.

Just because you believe that someone has done something morally wrong does not entitle you to do four morally wrong things to them in an effort to stop them; the Bible is quite clear on this. Lying, manipulation, arrogant posturing, and moralistic pontification are all just as wrong as birth control in the eyes of Catholic teaching.

Not that I expect this loon to show in confession next week.
posted by koeselitz at 4:27 PM on January 21, 2009 [2 favorites]


Yeah, if I was a woman, and I had an IUD, and this shithead pulled it out, I would jam pretty much every sharp or semi-sharp instrument (kelly forceps, tongue depressors, scalpels, whatever) I could grab in that office into her face, neck, chest. I know that it's wrong, but I would do it anyway. Ugh.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:04 PM on January 21, 2009


« Older "The government of the United States is in no sens...  |  The real estate crisis has sta... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments