Allen County settles lawsuit with abortion provider

Feb 18, 2011 Full story: Journal Gazette 38

FORT WAYNE The Allen County commissioners agreed Friday to settle a lawsuit brought by a local abortion clinic alleging an ordinance commissioners passed last year violated doctor-patient privacy laws.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#21 Feb 19, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
Yes, many do have "on call" physicians. But many do not, and they are not LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so.
Most doctors know that a patient--especially a pregnant or post-pregnant patient--cannot wait to get an appointment with the "on call" doctor when something goes seriously wrong. The on call doctor is a back-up for non-serious, non-emergency problems. Anything more than that and the woman should be going to the hospital, and I don't think it is asking too much to know where the nearest hospital to you is.
<quoted text>
"Most doctors know that a patient--especially a pregnant or post-pregnant patient--cannot wait to get an appointment with the "on call" doctor when something goes seriously wrong. The on call doctor is a back-up for non-serious, non-emergency problems. Anything more than that and the woman should be going to the hospital, and I don't think it is asking too much to know where the nearest hospital to you is."

Wrong again. The "on call" doctor is on call for all emergent and non-emergant issues. If a patient comes to the emergency room and needs more treatment, like admission or surgery, than the emergency room doc can provide, the patients doctor (or the one "on call" for them) is notified. The patients doctor, or the doctor who is "on call" for them, then takes over their care.

You really shouldn't try to discuss something that you know nothing about.
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#22 Feb 19, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nothing in this bill protects women. Nothing at all.
Applying for privilege at a hospital usually requires some form of residence, and the doctor may not believe the costs involved in the process are worth it if they don't live in the area.
<quoted text>
Then they shouldn't practice in that area.
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#23 Feb 19, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
All ordinations are meaningless. He was just more honest about it.
<quoted text>
No he wasn't, he pretended that it actually meant something.

“No one is free”

Since: Sep 07

when others are oppressed.

#24 Feb 19, 2011
Priestess Sue wrote:
<quoted text>
Then they shouldn't practice in that area.
Why not? There is obviously a need not being served by others in the area.
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#25 Feb 19, 2011
Johnny13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? There is obviously a need not being served by others in the area.
Then I guess he needs to follow the rules and have another doctor that will be available to his patients when he isn't.

“No one is free”

Since: Sep 07

when others are oppressed.

#26 Feb 19, 2011
Those rules sound like harassment specifically targeting the abortion provider, with the added benefit of opening a woman's private medical information to public inspection. The doctors complain that that this physician has no back up, and make a requirement that he needs to have a connection to a local network, only to uniformly refuse to be that back up?

Part of the right to an abortion is unencumbered access to exercise that right, and this is likely an unconstitutional barrier to that.

Whether you support free women or not, the meaning behind this "law" is pretty clear.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#27 Feb 20, 2011
The "on call doctor" can be called, but may not have privileges at that hospital and cannot take over their care. Moreover, as I said, not all doctors HAVE subs, and they are not required to have one for any other situation. But somehow doctors who provide abortions must? No logic there at all.

BTW--neither an on call doctor nor the regular physician has a legal duty to rush to the hospital, since the patient is already receiving care.
Priestess Sue wrote:
<quoted text>
"Most doctors know that a patient--especially a pregnant or post-pregnant patient--cannot wait to get an appointment with the "on call" doctor when something goes seriously wrong. The on call doctor is a back-up for non-serious, non-emergency problems. Anything more than that and the woman should be going to the hospital, and I don't think it is asking too much to know where the nearest hospital to you is."
Wrong again. The "on call" doctor is on call for all emergent and non-emergant issues. If a patient comes to the emergency room and needs more treatment, like admission or surgery, than the emergency room doc can provide, the patients doctor (or the one "on call" for them) is notified. The patients doctor, or the doctor who is "on call" for them, then takes over their care.
You really shouldn't try to discuss something that you know nothing about.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#28 Feb 20, 2011
That's not yours to say. If someone finds a doctor they trust and respect, and then one of them moves, they may still retain that relationship regardless of whether or not the doctor has hospital privileges where the patient is now residing.
Priestess Sue wrote:
<quoted text>
Then they shouldn't practice in that area.
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#29 Feb 20, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
The "on call doctor" can be called, but may not have privileges at that hospital and cannot take over their care. Moreover, as I said, not all doctors HAVE subs, and they are not required to have one for any other situation. But somehow doctors who provide abortions must? No logic there at all.
BTW--neither an on call doctor nor the regular physician has a legal duty to rush to the hospital, since the patient is already receiving care.
<quoted text>
You are really good at being wrong.

An example:

Dr Heart has admitting/medical/surgical privileges at Heartthrob Hospital. If Dr Heart goes away, he obtains the services of another doctor that also has admitting/medical/surgical privileges at Heartthrob Hospital to be "on call" for any of his patients that may need emergency admission/medical/surgical services while he is away. An emergency room doctor may take care of an immediate crisis, but if one of Dr Heart's patients needs to be admitted, or if they need more extensive services than the emergency room can provide, the hospital calls Dr Heart's "on call" doctor for that purpose. If Dr Heart uses the facilities of more than one hospital, he will have one "on call" doctor that also has privileges at all of them, or he will have more than one "on call".
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#30 Feb 20, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
That's not yours to say. If someone finds a doctor they trust and respect, and then one of them moves, they may still retain that relationship regardless of whether or not the doctor has hospital privileges where the patient is now residing.
<quoted text>
Yhe issue isn't where the patient resides, it is where the doctor practices.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#31 Feb 20, 2011
No. that MAY happen. What you keep ignoring is that no doctor is legally REQUIRED to have anyone on call, nor does the sub necessarily NEED to be registered at every hospital the primary is. You really think hospitals call every doctor involved until someone registered with them is available? The primary doctor isn't even a factor; hospitals are in no way bound to submit to their authority. They are treating the patient; the patient has all the rights here.

If a patient needs to be admitted, they do not wait for the primary or on call doctor before doing so; their care is not bound by his decisions. If they believe admitting the patient is necessary and the patient agrees, it doesn't matter what her own physician says regardless of their status with that hospital.

The issue here is the legal requirement being made for doctors who provide abortions, but not for any other physician.
Priestess Sue wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really good at being wrong.
An example:
Dr Heart has admitting/medical/surgical privileges at Heartthrob Hospital. If Dr Heart goes away, he obtains the services of another doctor that also has admitting/medical/surgical privileges at Heartthrob Hospital to be "on call" for any of his patients that may need emergency admission/medical/surgical services while he is away. An emergency room doctor may take care of an immediate crisis, but if one of Dr Heart's patients needs to be admitted, or if they need more extensive services than the emergency room can provide, the hospital calls Dr Heart's "on call" doctor for that purpose. If Dr Heart uses the facilities of more than one hospital, he will have one "on call" doctor that also has privileges at all of them, or he will have more than one "on call".

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#32 Feb 20, 2011
Patients have primary physicians at Mayo and other major healthcare centers, even though they may live in another state. Neither Mayo nor the patient is required to do anything about having a primary in their state of residence. Even if the Mayo physician has licensure in the patient's state, he is not required to find a local doctor; that is her choice. Most doctors give referrals in such situations, but aren't required to and the patient is in no way bound to follow up.

It is the legal requirement created ONLY for physicians ho perform abortions that is the issue here. It's probably unconstitutional under those circumstances anyway; at the very least, they would have to make it applicable to all physicians practicing in that state.
Priestess Sue wrote:
<quoted text>
Yhe issue isn't where the patient resides, it is where the doctor practices.
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#33 Feb 20, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
No. that MAY happen. What you keep ignoring is that no doctor is legally REQUIRED to have anyone on call, nor does the sub necessarily NEED to be registered at every hospital the primary is. You really think hospitals call every doctor involved until someone registered with them is available? The primary doctor isn't even a factor; hospitals are in no way bound to submit to their authority. They are treating the patient; the patient has all the rights here.
If a patient needs to be admitted, they do not wait for the primary or on call doctor before doing so; their care is not bound by his decisions. If they believe admitting the patient is necessary and the patient agrees, it doesn't matter what her own physician says regardless of their status with that hospital.
The issue here is the legal requirement being made for doctors who provide abortions, but not for any other physician.
<quoted text>
"What you keep ignoring is that no doctor is legally REQUIRED to have anyone on call,"

"Among provisions of the ordinance which will remain in place:

The itinerant medical providerís association with a local physician to facilitate peer monitoring of patient safety.

Providing patients with emergency contact info so they have a local physician to call to ensure adequate follow-up care.

The sharing of that information with local emergency rooms to protect patients brought in for care and the ability of the County to investigate violations.

Notice the words "remain in effect"

"You really think hospitals call every doctor involved until someone registered with them is available?"

They call the patients doctor, or if he is not available, the doctor 'on call" for him.

"The primary doctor isn't even a factor"

Really, who do you think admits the patient?

"If a patient needs to be admitted, they do not wait for the primary or on call doctor before doing so"

Actually they do.
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#34 Feb 20, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
Patients have primary physicians at Mayo and other major healthcare centers, even though they may live in another state. Neither Mayo nor the patient is required to do anything about having a primary in their state of residence. Even if the Mayo physician has licensure in the patient's state, he is not required to find a local doctor; that is her choice. Most doctors give referrals in such situations, but aren't required to and the patient is in no way bound to follow up.
It is the legal requirement created ONLY for physicians ho perform abortions that is the issue here. It's probably unconstitutional under those circumstances anyway; at the very least, they would have to make it applicable to all physicians practicing in that state.
<quoted text>
Again, the issue isn't where the patient resides, it is where the doctor practices.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#35 Feb 20, 2011
Hospitals are perfectly capable of admitting patients without a non-staff doctor's help, thanks. They will call the doctor IF the patient gives them that information. They may or may not call a sub--IF the doctor even has one. You keep saying it like every doctor covers every moment of every day, and many do not. Many doctors tell their patients that, if they are not available, go to an ER or other healthcare facility.

The provisions you quote refer ONLY to itinerant abortion providers, not itinerant cardiologists, podiatrists, or any other specialty. The first time, my doctor was out of town and the on call physician was satisfied with what the hospital was doing and did not come in since there was no particular danger. The second time, I had no personal physician and had no problem at all getting admitted.

You may WANT the medical profession to work as you describe, but they don't have to.

BTW--not only did I work in the medical community for 14 years, but I've been a patient in hospital twice.
Priestess Sue wrote:
<quoted text>
"What you keep ignoring is that no doctor is legally REQUIRED to have anyone on call,"
"Among provisions of the ordinance which will remain in place:
The itinerant medical providerís association with a local physician to facilitate peer monitoring of patient safety.
Providing patients with emergency contact info so they have a local physician to call to ensure adequate follow-up care.
The sharing of that information with local emergency rooms to protect patients brought in for care and the ability of the County to investigate violations.
Notice the words "remain in effect"
"You really think hospitals call every doctor involved until someone registered with them is available?"
They call the patients doctor, or if he is not available, the doctor 'on call" for him.
"The primary doctor isn't even a factor"
Really, who do you think admits the patient?
"If a patient needs to be admitted, they do not wait for the primary or on call doctor before doing so"
Actually they do.
Priestess Sue

Emmaus, PA

#36 Feb 20, 2011
cpeter1313 wrote:
Hospitals are perfectly capable of admitting patients without a non-staff doctor's help, thanks. They will call the doctor IF the patient gives them that information. They may or may not call a sub--IF the doctor even has one. You keep saying it like every doctor covers every moment of every day, and many do not. Many doctors tell their patients that, if they are not available, go to an ER or other healthcare facility.
The provisions you quote refer ONLY to itinerant abortion providers, not itinerant cardiologists, podiatrists, or any other specialty. The first time, my doctor was out of town and the on call physician was satisfied with what the hospital was doing and did not come in since there was no particular danger. The second time, I had no personal physician and had no problem at all getting admitted.
You may WANT the medical profession to work as you describe, but they don't have to.
BTW--not only did I work in the medical community for 14 years, but I've been a patient in hospital twice.
<quoted text>
"Hospitals are perfectly capable of admitting patients without a non-staff doctor's help, thanks. They will call the doctor IF the patient gives them that information."

Hospitals also have doctors "on call" for patients that don't have their own, however patient are asked who their "primary" doctor is and that doctor (unless the patient askes that they not be consulted) is called.

"You keep saying it like every doctor covers every moment of every day, and many do not."

Uh, yea they do.

"Many doctors tell their patients that, if they are not available, go to an ER or other healthcare facility."

Yes they tell them to go to the ER because they know that if there is a need for admission or surgery that the ER will notify them.

"The provisions you quote refer ONLY to itinerant abortion providers, not itinerant cardiologists, podiatrists, or any other specialty."

"In September 2008, the Board of Commissioners began to consider a patient safety ordinance, spurred by concern from local physicians that doctors from out of town were placing patients at risk by performing procedures without backup coverage. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the ordinance in April 2010 and amended it in June."

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2011021...

"The first time, my doctor was out of town and the on call physician was satisfied with what the hospital was doing and did not come in since there was no particular danger."

Did you see your prinary care doc during your admission?

"The second time, I had no personal physician and had no problem at all getting admitted."

Like I said, the hospital has "on call" docs for patients tha have no primary care.

Wow, in what capacity?
Gianni

UK

#38 Sep 24, 2013
I have ordered 2 times from this website PILLSMEDSHOP. COM . I called yesterday the customer care and asked for a discount as i was about to order twice the regular amount.
Cordell
#39 Oct 2, 2013
Very great deal and very smooth transaction. PILLSMEDSHOPdotCOM was on top of my order and shipped it within a day. Thats all that they have control over and they done it fast. It sat in customs for a little bit but they have no control over the sluggishness of how customs work.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Privacy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Experts urge people to think about the 'digital... Dec 7 Kid_Tomorrow 1
Uber hires former IBM privacy chief to investig... Nov '14 Datsun Sunny 1
White House calls for more privacy laws (May '14) Nov '14 Rick OBrien 7
Appeals court takes on NSA surveillance case Nov '14 Reno NV 1
Apple CEO publicly acknowledges that he's gay Nov '14 Belle Sexton 6
Earthquake sensors track urban traffic, too Oct '14 rOBIN hOOD 1
NSA snooping angers France; Obama forced to def... (Oct '13) Oct '14 Swedenforever 4
More from around the web