Give me a call Guin. Boy, have I’ve found a cure for you!
Barber of York
Everyone knows scripture reading just works on cataracts.
You assume wrong.
I am so disturbed by this on so manylevels, that i do not even know where to start. Before I rake this guy across the coals, I want to know why all of a sudden prayer is such an efffective medical treatment, regardless of over-prescribed medications.
Between noisy liberals and screaming conservatives, lies, and distortions of all sorts, i read this and visions of handmaids in red, and fetuses in jars, come to mind.
I am not offended by Eonwe’s joke, but neither am i amused by it, especially after countless readings of the Riot Act to my father,
who insists on stupid PMS jokes. obviously i am disappionted.
Right now my fondest hope is that Dubya is not re-elected.
That he recommends prayer and meditation does not bother me. He might be a fine physician.
This bothers me.
Of course, this begs the question “Who are these sources, and do they have an axe to grind?”
If this is his actual practice, he should not be nominated. Period.
No, I continue to believe that nominating anyone for ANYTHING simply for their group identification is not honorable. Hell, bribery has long been a means of getting a political appointment. That doesn’t mean it’s honorable.
And I do find some of Clinton’s appointments sort of obvious. The attorney general appointment stands out. Zoe Baird to Kimba Wood to Janet Reno. He sure seemed to want a woman in that role. I’m not saying they weren’t qualified for the position, just that after a while it became clear that there were other factors being considered than just their professional qualifications.
I take your point Jonathan.
Apointing a qualified person to broaden the team is one thing. Adding a token is another. In other words, if they’re added isimply for their group identification, I agree that would be bad.
Still, I was pleased when the Supreme Court added Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O’Conner, although their group identification played a role. So, I’m nore ambivalent than you are about this principle.
I know several doctors who have this rule. From what I’ve heard of Dr. Hager (again, from news sources, since I don’t know him), it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he does the same thing. (I’m not sure that UK would let him do so when practicing under their guise, but he can in his private practice.)
I have always felt this is the doctor’s right, so long as he is up front about it and is willing to refer those women elsewhere. However, I would never, ever refer a patient of mine to an OB/GYN who did this (married or not).
Yes, this would be enough that I wouldn’t want him in this FDA position, but there seem to be plenty of other reasons.
Dr. J
In some cases, I think prayer is advisable for PMS.
For the men. 
And we don’t know if he refuses to prescribe contraceptives categorically, or situationally. If he refuses to prescribe them for ANY reason, then you’re right, he probably doesn’t belong in the office he’s being considered for(considered in this sense doesn’t mean the nomination has been made, he’s being considered for the nomination). If a woman comes to him with hormonal problems which are causing her menstrual cycle to be irregular/unhealty, for which contraceptives are a form of treatment, and he refuses to even consider that form of treatment on grounds of his own ideological grounds, he shouldn’t be in charge of any patients. I’d argue against his fitness for private practice as well. He certainly should not be the head of an important portion of a Federal agency whose decisions impact clients with different ideologies.
If he refuses to prescribe to unmarried women so they can have active sex lives with minimal fear of pregnancy, then he could simply be prescribing according to his own ideologies. This could be fine in private practice, where his clients can choose to go elsewhere if they don’t want to have their choices restricted by ideological guidelines. I still would not support his appointment to a decision-making role where his decisions would carry the weight of regulation. I have no desire to have women’s health issues regulated by religious ideologies, any religious ideologies.
Now, if he puts his feelings aside when medical necessity arises, and gives his patients every option medically available to them, then my objections vanish.
Enjoy,
Steven
The birth control issue is enough for me to say NO WAY to this guy.