(no subject)
Dec. 4th, 2006 04:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sethrakAlso found at feministing.com, an article describing a columnist's efforts to find just how easy it is to obtain emergency contraception. Here
Her perfect description of why EC needs to be over the counter and why doctors should not be able to decide for the patient whether or not they are 'good enough' to obtain it:
"If I entered the emergency room with a broken arm, also the result of an accident, the doctor wouldn't decide to fix it. It wouldn't be the ER's prerogative to decide whether my accident should alter my life irrevocably, the possible result of an untreated break. I wouldn't be denied medication to alleviate the effects of my mistake.
So, then, isn't a judgment of worthiness the clear message of meeting with the doctor to discuss my "situation?" The merit of my request will be assessed, and, if I meet some undefined set of criteria, I will be granted the resources I seek. The Provident nurse's "you can't just come in here and decide what medicine you want" point is well taken, but why is emergency contraception considered a "want" any less important than other remedies? I mean, I don't technically need to get my broken arm fixed. I might not be able to use it for a while, it might hurt, and it might substantially alter the course of my life, but isn't getting it repaired really a "want?" Don't I simply "want" to regain the full use of my body as I know it as quickly and painlessly as possible? These are serious questions because women across the country are not getting equal care. Until January, they are being forced to persuade their doctors to provide medical attention for a "situation" that is neither illegal nor uncommon. "
Her perfect description of why EC needs to be over the counter and why doctors should not be able to decide for the patient whether or not they are 'good enough' to obtain it:
"If I entered the emergency room with a broken arm, also the result of an accident, the doctor wouldn't decide to fix it. It wouldn't be the ER's prerogative to decide whether my accident should alter my life irrevocably, the possible result of an untreated break. I wouldn't be denied medication to alleviate the effects of my mistake.
So, then, isn't a judgment of worthiness the clear message of meeting with the doctor to discuss my "situation?" The merit of my request will be assessed, and, if I meet some undefined set of criteria, I will be granted the resources I seek. The Provident nurse's "you can't just come in here and decide what medicine you want" point is well taken, but why is emergency contraception considered a "want" any less important than other remedies? I mean, I don't technically need to get my broken arm fixed. I might not be able to use it for a while, it might hurt, and it might substantially alter the course of my life, but isn't getting it repaired really a "want?" Don't I simply "want" to regain the full use of my body as I know it as quickly and painlessly as possible? These are serious questions because women across the country are not getting equal care. Until January, they are being forced to persuade their doctors to provide medical attention for a "situation" that is neither illegal nor uncommon. "
