4 ms·
> There’s a school of medical ethics > very, very influential line of thought among doctors I'm not very "rah rah we currently live in a patriarchy", but wtf?
by reducesuffering 5y ago
> There’s a school of medical ethics
> very, very influential line of thought among doctors
I'm not very "rah rah we currently live in a patriarchy", but wtf? Is it not elementary to consider GROUP effects when dishing out medicine? If a couple (most of the people where the women is taking birth control) come into a doctor's office with that blood clot predicament, it should not be very hard for a doctor to consider them as a couple, when they can clearly communicate that they care about their total health equally.
If our medical system is mostly only able to consider the primary patient, unable to prescribe medicine taking into account the second order effects in that person's life to people they care about, then our medical institutions are (even more) flawed.
- pyuser583 5y agoIt’s fine if it’s something that benefits everyone. Like cleaner air reducing lung cancer. But when you adopt an attitude of “you’re going to have to take one for the team” that’s where the principal comes into play.
- tangjurine 5y agoI think I would support some sort of government incentive for this. It's good for everyone if people are encouraged to make sacrifices that net benefit society. In the long run, everyone should benefit (if the sacrifices and benefitees are equally distributed enough).
- pyuser583 5y agoAlternately, one could argue sacrifices should be made by those who gain the most from them. Preganancy can cause very bad outcomes. Therefore it's more appropriate contraceptives development focus on women. Think of it this way - a guy says "yeah I'm on the pill ... no of course I didn't for get to take one of the pills yesterday ... trust me." Why isn't this as reassuring as a woman stating she's on birth control?