Should doctors be required to give Miranda to pregnant women?

[Juanita]

I could be wrong, but I think reporting drug abuse has to do with certain drugs and abuse of drugs being illegal. I'm not aware of pregnancy being illegal in any state.

Confidentiality between doctor and patient..... Pregnancy is not illegal, but abortion might once again become illegal and I "can" see a scenario of such a thing coming to be....

 

[Juanita]

As someone who is 100% pro-choice, I can tell you unequivocally that some of the people in this thread who would call themselves pro-choice would more aptly be characterized as pro-abortion. I think if they had it their way, every woman would have a doctor outside their house ready to rush in the moment a woman decides to even consider an abortion.

What so many in the pro-choice crowd, like joko and Juanita for example, don't seem to understand is the word "choice". They are so intent on arguing for abortions, they sometimes seem to forget the word choice.

Trying to pull a fast one, are we? Choice is what it is "all" about, without barriors being placed in front of a "right"......Nobody is pro-abortion....

 

[Juanita]

I agree - they call me a liar when I indicate I'm pro-choice, because people should be free to choose their own path, but I also abhor when a woman makes a lifestyle choice to abort. Yet they hate to be called pro-abortion, although abortion is all they promote, and insist they be called pro-choice. To them, I can't be pro-choice because my preference would be protecting life, with exceptions, yet they can be pro-choice even though they seldom if ever credit the choice to carry a child to term.

That is what "choice" means--to carry or not to carry... My preference would not be abortion, but then that would be my choice.....

 

[Bonzai]

Confidentiality between doctor and patient..... Pregnancy is not illegal, but abortion might once again become illegal and I "can" see a scenario of such a thing coming to be....

This one of the fruits of too much "compromise" with "people of faith" .......................

 

[Slyfox696]

Then you are refusing to answer:

No I'm not. I'm just not giving you one of the two answers you want me to give. You want a yes or no answer to a complex question. You have my answer and have had my answer.

If they are ordered to do so by law they are agents of the police.

No, they are not. Please see my example earlier about teachers reporting child abuse.

Trying to pull a fast one, are we?

Yes...because pulling a fast one is possible on an Internet forum which never deletes posts...:roll:

Choice is what it is "all" about

No, I generally find it's more about pro-abortion for people like you.

 

[choiceone]

So...the doctor should just turn a blind eye to the fact the woman is taking illegal drugs while pregnant? It's a terrible alternative, but only one can be recognized as accepting a law breaker putting a child in danger.
No...her option is to not do drugs.

You seem to be arguing the doctor should be okay with the idea of a pregnant lady doing illegal drugs to the potential detriment of her child, all under the guise of some silly notion of making doctors, who are not law enforcement, read Miranda warnings to pregnant women, as if THAT will protect the child.

Your idea is very far moved from what I'd consider rational.

The point that Sarcogito and joko104 are making is quite valid. No adult is required to go to a doctor except in two cases: 1) he/she knows that he/she has a serious contagious illness that could result in a pandemic, and 2) immediately after a baby is born, to report the birth. \

As for 2), even though it would be nice if all babies could be born in hospitals, it actually is not possible. Sometimes a woman just suddenly has the baby without labor pains. Sometimes she's too far from the hospital and has to give birth on the way. Etc. But the birth must be reported and the baby examined. Nonetheless, adults aren't required to go to a doctor and be examined themselves.

For this reason, if you make laws that make going to the doctor during pregnancy a legal liability for women, they can just choose not to go to the doctor and that solves their problem. So one reason this whole area of thought regarding doctors reporting things to the police and drug testing of pregnant women is problematic is that we can't make laws that force people to go to the doctor.

Furthermore, if you make pregnancy unpleasant socially, adding to the physical unpleasantness many women feel, many more women are going to stop producing children because it just won't be worth the trouble.

If you want women to keep on producing children and to do it in a healthy way, this is my advice: if courtship worked for sex, try its techniques for pregnancy and healthy behavior during pregnancy. A kindly, helpful, respectful, generous manner is much more persuasive than domineering ranting and threats of force.

 

[choiceone]

I'm a sexist because I don't want to subject children to a mother who is doing drugs during her pregnancy? You do realize that roughly half of the babies born are female, right?

He did not say you were sexist with regard to babies. He said you were sexist with regard to women, i.e., female adults.

 

[choiceone]

Yes. The fact you think a woman is automatically just going to do drugs when she is pregnant is incredibly sexist.

Nor is she required to use illegal drugs. Though maybe you think she should, I don't know. I really have no idea why you seem to think pregnant women have no choice on whether or not to use illegal drugs.

This doesn't even begin to make sense. First of all, my entire platform throughout this thread has been for the safety and well-being of the child, unlike you who seems to care far more about the ability to get away with using illegal drugs while pregnant. Second of all...do you have any idea how old humankind is? Women have been having babies long before modern medicine.

The woman always has that choice, how does this affect that? Again, do you even realize what you're saying? Did you ever?

You still don't get it. If a woman is doing illegal drugs and can't stop, because she is addicted to them, and gets pregnant, it is not that easy to get her to decide to stop doing the drugs for the duration of the pregnancy.

If she thinks you're going to get her forcibly arrested and put in jail instead of persuade her in a helpful manner to get into rehab voluntarily, she'll be afraid of you and angry at you and would certainly rather have an abortion than have a baby, because you represent a society so horrible that it's not worth bringing anyone into it anyway.

So all your arrogance and laws about pregnancy will have the effect of increasing the choice of abortion rather than helping women get their act together so they will feel they can become decent mothers.

 

[choiceone]

As someone who is 100% pro-choice, I can tell you unequivocally that some of the people in this thread who would call themselves pro-choice would more aptly be characterized as pro-abortion. I think if they had it their way, every woman would have a doctor outside their house ready to rush in the moment a woman decides to even consider an abortion.

What so many in the pro-choice crowd, like joko and Juanita for example, don't seem to understand is the word "choice". They are so intent on arguing for abortions, they sometimes seem to forget the word choice.

I agree - they call me a liar when I indicate I'm pro-choice, because people should be free to choose their own path, but I also abhor when a woman makes a lifestyle choice to abort. Yet they hate to be called pro-abortion, although abortion is all they promote, and insist they be called pro-choice. To them, I can't be pro-choice because my preference would be protecting life, with exceptions, yet they can be pro-choice even though they seldom if ever credit the choice to carry a child to term.

The only reason we sound like this is because the legal right to choose is now under serious assault in this country and anti-abortion fanatics have become more rude, more loud, and more sneaky in legislatures. Do you know about how anti-abortion items were included in an Ohio budget bill and in a sneak attack in a motorcycle bill in one of the Carolinas?

Nobody is threatening the choice to continue the pregnancy. It does not need anybody to defend it and protest all this horrid behavior by anti-abortion people. Nobody is restricting the choice to continue pregnancy and just allowing it by "exceptions."

The truth is that there are more and more women who don't ever want to get pregnant and have kids because too many busybodies are making such a big deal about being pro-life and anti-abortion that they completely turn some women off of the idea of having kids.

Whatever happened to the use of sugar instead of vinegar?

 

[choiceone]

This is horrifically false and presumptuous - virtually everything that triggers any drug test is in our environment? Hmm.

Ok - so your argument is now that it's just useless because everyone, regardless of whether they've done any illegal substances or not, will test positive (maybe).

While it's extreme to say virtually everything that triggers any drug test is in our environment, it is perfectly true to say that you can fail one of these illegal drug tests without ever using illegal drugs. In particular, those poppyseed muffins you have for breakfast will make you fail a drug test for opiates given randomly by your employer. When the people doing the tests can't tell the difference between employees who eat poppyseed muffins and and employees who score snow, what the h--- is the purpose of the test?

 

[choiceone]

That's funny coming from a proclaimed socialist. LOL - come on, I know you don't actually believe that. You're not a libertarian.

Socialists don't want to be in your bodies. They want to be in part of your bank account.

 

[choiceone]

Just to clarify, when I refer to "lifestyle choice" abortions, I mean those women who abort because having a child at that time in their lives conflicts with their current lifestyle, whether because they're starting a career, they're in school, they're not serious about the father, etc. - in other words, nothing to do with rape, incest or health of the woman or her fetus.

Many of the women who have what you call "lifestyle choice" abortions would have them even if we made abortion illegal here, because they would be able to go out and find the money, borrow the money, etc., to go to a place where they could get an abortion, and they would do it.

But a huge percentage of abortions are for economic reasons because a woman living at the poverty level already has children and does not have enough money and can't earn enough money to take care of any more. I know you'd say, then she should give the child up for adoption, but the truth is that very few women want to go through a pregnancy and then just give the kid up for adoption - many intuitively feel that giving up the kid is far more immoral than an early abortion.

 

[Moot]

I think you're right ChoiceOne. In LA, where is there large below poverty hispanic population and because of their Catholic faith forbidding abortions and the macho culture, women who get pregnant out of wedlock were/are often ostracized and so they would try to hide their pregnancies and after they give birth probably in a restroom somewhere, they would leave their newborn babies in garbage dumpsters. It was almost epidemic there for awhile until someone finally thought of setting up a baby drop off box at churches and firestations where the mothers could still remain anonymous and give up their unwanted offspring. A lot of states also passed safe haven laws. Apparently, Texas was the first in 1999.

Safe-haven law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anyway, the point is, the poor women wouldn't go to a doctor or hospital because they might be identified and then get arrested for child abandment and/or abuse. I've asked myself what could possibly make a woman give birth and then immediately abandon the baby in a dumpster and the best I can come up with is fear, ignorance and shame. But its also a good example of what can happen when poor women don't have access to birth control, abortions, healthcare, education or just can't afford any more children and the slew of recent laws getting passed are not in their favor. Infant abandoment isn't unique to the US, it's happening all over Europe and Russia, too.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

While it's extreme to say virtually everything that triggers any drug test is in our environment, it is perfectly true to say that you can fail one of these illegal drug tests without ever using illegal drugs. In particular, those poppyseed muffins you have for breakfast will make you fail a drug test for opiates given randomly by your employer. When the people doing the tests can't tell the difference between employees who eat poppyseed muffins and and employees who score snow, what the h--- is the purpose of the test?

Everyone knows about poppyseeds.
I can't think of anything else that can be ingested which would result in a false positive.

For prescriptions - all you have to do is provide evidence of it being legally prescribed.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Many of the women who have what you call "lifestyle choice" abortions would have them even if we made abortion illegal here, because they would be able to go out and find the money, borrow the money, etc., to go to a place where they could get an abortion, and they would do it.

But a huge percentage of abortions are for economic reasons because a woman living at the poverty level already has children and does not have enough money and can't earn enough money to take care of any more. I know you'd say, then she should give the child up for adoption, but the truth is that very few women want to go through a pregnancy and then just give the kid up for adoption - many intuitively feel that giving up the kid is far more immoral than an early abortion.

Actually, I'd say the woman should give up the child before she gets pregnant, not after - in other words, a woman in poverty who already has children and ends up pregnant again is just plain stupid. I understand people make mistakes in life, but I have no time for people who continue to make the same mistakes over and over again because of their own selfishness. That may be seen as harsh, but if women rightly want to claim to be masters of their own bodies, there is no excuse for any woman to become pregnant over and over again, with unwanted children, unless they are the victims of a crime. It's back to the old personal responsibility argument, which many reject.

 

[choiceone]

Everyone knows about poppyseeds.
I can't think of anything else that can be ingested which would result in a false positive.

For prescriptions - all you have to do is provide evidence of it being legally prescribed.

Sure, but the poppyseed problem still gets people fired if they fail employer drug tests. Go figure.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Sure, but the poppyseed problem still gets people fired if they fail employer drug tests. Go figure.

In the military they put one on suspension and permit a retake.

 

[choiceone]

Actually, I'd say the woman should give up the child before she gets pregnant, not after - in other words, a woman in poverty who already has children and ends up pregnant again is just plain stupid. I understand people make mistakes in life, but I have no time for people who continue to make the same mistakes over and over again because of their own selfishness. That may be seen as harsh, but if women rightly want to claim to be masters of their own bodies, there is no excuse for any woman to become pregnant over and over again, with unwanted children, unless they are the victims of a crime. It's back to the old personal responsibility argument, which many reject.

Women who are married to or cohabiting with abusive men or are teens dating abusive boys can get pregnant because the guy sabotages the condom or throws away her birth control pills. There have been epidemics of reproductive coercion in some places in the US. See Study on Forced Pregnancy: Help for Women Who Face Threat - TIME and Reproductive coercion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sure, I think the woman/girl should leave the abusive relationship, but many women/girls, especially when young, can't hold their own in a relation with an assertive guy, which is why abusive guys choose such women/girls in the first place - it's adaptive for their abuse. And abusive guys can be very good at hiding their abusive, controlling nature to start relationships. For the girl or woman, it's like walking into a restaurant and discovering she's in prison and doesn't know how to get out.

 

[choiceone]

In the military they put one on suspension and permit a retake.

That's because the government, a public employer, can't behave as irresponsibly toward employees as a private one.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Women who are married to or cohabiting with abusive men or are teens dating abusive boys can get pregnant because the guy sabotages the condom or throws away her birth control pills. There have been epidemics of reproductive coercion in some places in the US. See Study on Forced Pregnancy: Help for Women Who Face Threat - TIME and Reproductive coercion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sure, I think the woman/girl should leave the abusive relationship, but many women/girls, especially when young, can't hold their own in a relation with an assertive guy, which is why abusive guys choose such women/girls in the first place - it's adaptive for their abuse. And abusive guys can be very good at hiding their abusive, controlling nature to start relationships. For the girl or woman, it's like walking into a restaurant and discovering she's in prison and doesn't know how to get out.

Fair enough - a miniscule proportion of all abortions may be the result of such scenarios - I do not credit for a minute, however, that abusive men want to have a multitude of children running around them costing them money to support. They may be impregnating women as a source of income, if the woman is on welfare and getting additional funding for additional children, but that then tells you something about the corruption of the welfare system.

I don't have answers to all the ills of our society - I just know that freely breeding and using access to abortion as a means of birth control is just wrong.

 

[Sisyphus]

As a teacher, if I see evidence of abuse of a student, I'm legally required to report the abuse to some authority (there are different avenues). Should I also be required to give a Miranda warning to the parent I'm reporting for abuse?

The answer, of course, is no. The Miranda warning is not required when an investigation is proceeding or when evidence is created/discovered, it's only required when a person is placed under arrest or is otherwise in police custody. Since neither doctors nor myself have the power to arrest a person, we are not required to read Miranda.

The warning should never be required. Mygod; who does not know their rights, and further know that they do not begin at the point they're read to us?

Plus, Miranda is a joke and merely scratches the surface. What should be read, the very moment we're about to be interrogated, is this:

You do not have to answer a single question, submit to a test, or talk to me without an attorney representing you. In fact, I cannot even continue my interrogation of you, once informed by you that you wish an attorney be present. Moreover, without a warrant or your consent, I cannot search you, nor your places (car, home, office) or papers, unless one of three things occur or seem probable: exigent circumstance; plain sight; incident to arrest. Do you understand all of these rights? If not, what questions can I answer for you regarding your rights?

 

[joko104]

Everyone knows about poppyseeds.
I can't think of anything else that can be ingested which would result in a false positive.

For prescriptions - all you have to do is provide evidence of it being legally prescribed.

That's not how drug tests work. The are generally quite subjective if done correctly. They inquire of any medications you use - prescription and otherwise - your diet, your health, your weight and other specifics - age, gender etc - and then all that info is calculated into ratios to decide what level of "positive" means drug use. It is likely that at some level, there are some substance that will show some degree of positive for essentially ever illegal drug. Certain spores/pollen from bluebonnets will show as LSD for example and there is a homemade LSD from certain species of bluebonnet seeded. If you have any typical hemp (not artificial and not cotton rope), you have "hemp" in your system at some trace level.

It's very subjective and drug-test facilities are specialized experts in that field. Most doctors are not.

There also are different test options - from cheap to expensive.

That, of course, isn't the primary question. The question is of eliminating doctor-patient privilege for pregnant women - and only pregnant women. Why? There are a whole lot more people and professionals for which being on drugs is far more dangerous to far more people.

What about lawyer-client privilege? Can I use Slyfox's logic and claim that anyone who supports lawyer-client privilege is doing so because they want to protect pedophiles, rapists and murderers?

 

[joko104]

I don't have answers to all the ills of our society - I just know that freely breeding and using access to abortion as a means of birth control is just wrong.

Easy for a man to say, isn't it?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Easy for a man to say, isn't it?

It is easy to say, if you have a moral compass and a sense of decency.

 

[joko104]

It is easy to say, if you have a moral compass and a sense of decency.

... and if your moral compass always points away from you - and you direct which way it points. I believe any man who wants to force girls and women to have children against their will is a notably indecent man.