Woman raped by stranger and then arrested by cops.

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Phokus

"The supervisor said the morning after pill was against her, the supervisor's, religion and refused to dispense it," the alleged victim's mother said.

FVCK THAT. That's complete bullshit.

I agree. Makes me wonder what would happen if they wound up with a nurse that was a member of one of those religions that disallows medication of any kind. Of course, I don't know if those people even enter the medical field. I certainly hope not.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjones

I agree with you Mill on everything, including your previous post, except this last paragraph. What about in the case where this medical person works for the state? In personal practice, I agree with you and feel they can do whatever they wish, but when one works for the state, I believe you have to set your religious preferences aside and offer up treatment in accordance with the state's guidelines. Of course, this is assuming the state has a guideleine which recommends dispensing such medication upon request of the patient/victim.

I would tend to agree that the med pro should have the freedom to not do something that goes against their beliefs, except in the case of a captive patient that cannot get care elsewhere. This is the one area where the state CAN legally hire/fire based on religious preference... if that belief impairs their ability to do the job fully.

I'm a med pro and i believe we SHOULDNT have the choice. Look, we're taught to be objective about everything else. To leave our beliefs at home. Sure thats a tall order but passing a medication is a very simple act.

I look at it like this, nowhere else in the hospital is religion allowed unless it's the hospital chaplain/imam/rabbi. If I tried to preach Christianity to a Muslim patient I'd be fired. Or if I said my religious beliefs don't allow me to take care of a jewish patient....I'd definitely be written up for a major infraction, possibly fired. In my eyes as a medical professional, this act should be a fireable offense. And don't give me crap about being easy to pass the work off, if you cant be objective enough to pass a medication then you really shouldn't be taking care of that person.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I believe in freedom. That means not forcing an individual to do something they do not want to do. Now, if you work for someone else, and they insist you must do that to keep your job, then I would agree with you. The employer has every right to hire/fire someone who cannot do the job fully. However, for someone in private practice, or for a company that holds that position, I would disagree with you.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjones

I agree with you Mill on everything, including your previous post, except this last paragraph. What about in the case where this medical person works for the state? In personal practice, I agree with you and feel they can do whatever they wish, but when one works for the state, I believe you have to set your religious preferences aside and offer up treatment in accordance with the state's guidelines. Of course, this is assuming the state has a guideleine which recommends dispensing such medication upon request of the patient/victim.

I would tend to agree that the med pro should have the freedom to not do something that goes against their beliefs, except in the case of a captive patient that cannot get care elsewhere. This is the one area where the state CAN legally hire/fire based on religious preference... if that belief impairs their ability to do the job fully.

I'm a med pro and i believe we SHOULDNT have the choice. Look, we're taught to be objective about everything else. To leave our beliefs at home. Sure thats a tall order but passing a medication is a very simple act.

I look at it like this, nowhere else in the hospital is religion allowed unless it's the hospital chaplain/imam/rabbi. If I tried to preach Christianity to a Muslim patient I'd be fired. Or if I said my religious beliefs don't allow me to take care of a jewish patient....I'd definitely be written up for a major infraction, possibly fired. In my eyes as a medical professional, this act should be a fireable offense. And don't give me crap about being easy to pass the work off, if you cant be objective enough to pass a medication then you really shouldn't be taking care of that person.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I believe in freedom. That means not forcing an individual to do something they do not want to do. Now, if you work for someone else, and they insist you must do that to keep your job, then I would agree with you. The employer has every right to hire/fire someone who cannot do the job fully. However, for someone in private practice, or for a company that holds that position, I would disagree with you.

I only get so fired up about this because it puts a bad spin on nurses and medical professionals. And again I only feel so strongly because we're required to be objective about everything else. I do things all the time that I don't like but I just STFU about it and do it, as does everyone else. You wanna complain/protest/refuse something, do it at home, in the break room, BUT NOT IN FRONT OF THE PATIENT.

I mean working where I work, we take all the sick prisoners from the county, state and local jails....do you think I like taking care of rapists, murderers, molesters? HELL NO. Do I refuse to take care of them? Nope. None of my employees like taking care of prisoners, especially violent or cruel or perverted ones but we just trudge on and do it...it's part of the job...if you dont like it, then GTFU of the nursing/med pro profession

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: techs
The nurse not giving her the pill because of her religious beliefs reminds me of the Saudi Arabian incident (or was it Iran) where a girls school was on fire and the firemen wouldn't go in to put it out because it was against their religious beliefs.
Religious extremism flourishes here in America.

If I remember correctly, the firemen wanted to go in but were prevented by fundamentalists.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjones

I agree with you Mill on everything, including your previous post, except this last paragraph. What about in the case where this medical person works for the state? In personal practice, I agree with you and feel they can do whatever they wish, but when one works for the state, I believe you have to set your religious preferences aside and offer up treatment in accordance with the state's guidelines. Of course, this is assuming the state has a guideleine which recommends dispensing such medication upon request of the patient/victim.

I would tend to agree that the med pro should have the freedom to not do something that goes against their beliefs, except in the case of a captive patient that cannot get care elsewhere. This is the one area where the state CAN legally hire/fire based on religious preference... if that belief impairs their ability to do the job fully.

I'm a med pro and i believe we SHOULDNT have the choice. Look, we're taught to be objective about everything else. To leave our beliefs at home. Sure thats a tall order but passing a medication is a very simple act.

I look at it like this, nowhere else in the hospital is religion allowed unless it's the hospital chaplain/imam/rabbi. If I tried to preach Christianity to a Muslim patient I'd be fired. Or if I said my religious beliefs don't allow me to take care of a jewish patient....I'd definitely be written up for a major infraction, possibly fired. In my eyes as a medical professional, this act should be a fireable offense. And don't give me crap about being easy to pass the work off, if you cant be objective enough to pass a medication then you really shouldn't be taking care of that person.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I believe in freedom. That means not forcing an individual to do something they do not want to do. Now, if you work for someone else, and they insist you must do that to keep your job, then I would agree with you. The employer has every right to hire/fire someone who cannot do the job fully. However, for someone in private practice, or for a company that holds that position, I would disagree with you.

I only get so fired up about this because it puts a bad spin on nurses and medical professionals. And again I only feel so strongly because we're required to be objective about everything else. I do things all the time that I don't like but I just STFU about it and do it, as does everyone else. You wanna complain/protest/refuse something, do it at home, in the break room, BUT NOT IN FRONT OF THE PATIENT.

I mean working where I work, we take all the sick prisoners from the county, state and local jails....do you think I like taking care of rapists, murderers, molesters? HELL NO. Do I refuse to take care of them? Nope. None of my employees like taking care of prisoners, especially violent or cruel or perverted ones but we just trudge on and do it...it's part of the job...if you dont like it, then GTFU of the nursing/med pro profession

That's cool. I guess I should have qualified my first post with the issue of employees. They have to be able to fullfill the duties given to them by the employer, or find another job.

But doctors in private practice pick and choose their patients every day. I don't see this issue as any different.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amused

Really? Who is in jail based specifically on a RR law passed in the past 7 years?

Do you even know how to differentiate between political platforms?

BTW, our incarceration rate is due, for the most part, to the War on Drugs. A policy that has support from nearly every political ideology and both parties.

I know exactly how to differentiate between the two parties.

Your heroes get as many of the lower class locked up so they can't vote because normally they vote for the opposing party.

Quite brilliant actually.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: AMDUALY
First to say, OWNED

Dude, that response is rediculous. I pray to god that you never have to deal with a rape that hits close to home.

Exactly. That was a realyl stupid thing to say AMDUALY

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: toolboxolio

Originally posted by: Estrella

Originally posted by: toolboxolio

Originally posted by: dbk
I think the most interesting part of the article is the denial of the pill.

The reason for denial to be more specific.

I was thinking that the jail was just neglecting her until I read the part about religious horsesh!t.

I think jesus would have given her the pill... then fired the jail nurse for being a nartard.

LOL. what is a "nartard?". it is a new one for me

I am not sure either, but it's from southpark. Stan was yelling at his dad while he was playing WoW, and Stan called his dad an artard or nartard... and I lol'd. I assume by Stan's tone that it is an insult. And since it is similar to retard, it's probably an insult on one's intelligence.

But that's where I got it from.

R-tard.
Like retard, but without the E.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused

Really? Who is in jail based specifically on a RR law passed in the past 7 years?

Do you even know how to differentiate between political platforms?

BTW, our incarceration rate is due, for the most part, to the War on Drugs. A policy that has support from nearly every political ideology and both parties.

I know exactly how to differentiate between the two parties.

Your heroes get as many of the lower class locked up so they can't vote because normally they vote for the opposing party.

Quite brilliant actually.

:::sigh:::

Dave, please name one RELIGIOUS RIGHT (not conservative) law passed in the past 7 years that you have lost a freedom to. There are more subtlties to politics than simply left and right, Dave.

And, yet again, the War on Drugs is fully supported by BOTH parties.

My heroes? I didn't know libertarians had anyone locked up. AMAZING!!!

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: AMDUALY

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: AMDUALY
First to say, OWNED

You have to be one of the biggest idiots I've ever seen on this forum and that's really saying something. Feel free to stop breathing any time.

So my opinion based on no conclusive evidence is somehow wrong compared to the people who sympathized with the "victim" based on no conclusive evidence?

If the girl actually knew she had an outstanding warrant and did actually think that she had taken care of it, it would be a pretty crazy thing to call the cops. Who knows though. With that said, your original comment was still incredibly dumb and lacked any sophistication in it at all.

 

[halik]

Souds a little too sensational on all fronts... shens.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjones

I agree with you Mill on everything, including your previous post, except this last paragraph. What about in the case where this medical person works for the state? In personal practice, I agree with you and feel they can do whatever they wish, but when one works for the state, I believe you have to set your religious preferences aside and offer up treatment in accordance with the state's guidelines. Of course, this is assuming the state has a guideleine which recommends dispensing such medication upon request of the patient/victim.

I would tend to agree that the med pro should have the freedom to not do something that goes against their beliefs, except in the case of a captive patient that cannot get care elsewhere. This is the one area where the state CAN legally hire/fire based on religious preference... if that belief impairs their ability to do the job fully.

I'm a med pro and i believe we SHOULDNT have the choice. Look, we're taught to be objective about everything else. To leave our beliefs at home. Sure thats a tall order but passing a medication is a very simple act.

I look at it like this, nowhere else in the hospital is religion allowed unless it's the hospital chaplain/imam/rabbi. If I tried to preach Christianity to a Muslim patient I'd be fired. Or if I said my religious beliefs don't allow me to take care of a jewish patient....I'd definitely be written up for a major infraction, possibly fired. In my eyes as a medical professional, this act should be a fireable offense. And don't give me crap about being easy to pass the work off, if you cant be objective enough to pass a medication then you really shouldn't be taking care of that person.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I believe in freedom. That means not forcing an individual to do something they do not want to do. Now, if you work for someone else, and they insist you must do that to keep your job, then I would agree with you. The employer has every right to hire/fire someone who cannot do the job fully. However, for someone in private practice, or for a company that holds that position, I would disagree with you.

I only get so fired up about this because it puts a bad spin on nurses and medical professionals. And again I only feel so strongly because we're required to be objective about everything else. I do things all the time that I don't like but I just STFU about it and do it, as does everyone else. You wanna complain/protest/refuse something, do it at home, in the break room, BUT NOT IN FRONT OF THE PATIENT.

I mean working where I work, we take all the sick prisoners from the county, state and local jails....do you think I like taking care of rapists, murderers, molesters? HELL NO. Do I refuse to take care of them? Nope. None of my employees like taking care of prisoners, especially violent or cruel or perverted ones but we just trudge on and do it...it's part of the job...if you dont like it, then GTFU of the nursing/med pro profession

That's cool. I guess I should have qualified my first post with the issue of employees. They have to be able to fullfill the duties given to them by the employer, or find another job.

But doctors in private practice pick and choose their patients every day. I don't see this issue as any different.

Yea thats their thing. They wanna be biased in patient selection go ahead cuz as long as you shut your mouth no one will know. And on that part I agree.

 

[irishScott]

"The supervisor said the morning after pill was against her, the supervisor's, religion and refused to dispense it," the alleged victim's mother said.

This is part of the reason why I'm agnostic. This sh!t just pisses me off :|

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Ilikepiedoyou
at my school, rape is most often the fault of the victim

I really hope you are being sarcastic. :roll:

If not, how? All the perpetrator has to do is restrain himself, unless one is to believe some backward notion that men cannot resist such temptation and therefore the women are at fault.:|

I dont believe that its the victim's *fault*. However there are many many cases where the woman aggravates it in the moronic way they dress. It's disgusting and you'd think these people would have more sense to them than always yelling "Hey!! Look how my breasts are showing! And look how tight these jeans are!! But you better not touch me or I will put you in jail!" :roll:

that has to be the most idiotic thing i have ever read on here. Considering i have been here for years that is saying alot.


no matter how a women dress's it is never a reason to rape her. to even think that a women deserves to be raped is reallly bad.

So if you are wearing shorts and a tank top its ok for a gay guy to rape you? and you deserved it for teasing him?

its your way of thinking that keeps women from reporting it.

 

[ahurtt]

Only person I see who did anything wrong was the supervisor who refused to give the rape victim her pill. . .well and the rapist too. You sow a bad seed and bad things grow. The past has a way of catching up with you.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Ilikepiedoyou
at my school, rape is most often the fault of the victim

I really hope you are being sarcastic. :roll:

If not, how? All the perpetrator has to do is restrain himself, unless one is to believe some backward notion that men cannot resist such temptation and therefore the women are at fault.:|

I dont believe that its the victim's *fault*. However there are many many cases where the woman aggravates it in the moronic way they dress. It's disgusting and you'd think these people would have more sense to them than always yelling "Hey!! Look how my breasts are showing! And look how tight these jeans are!! But you better not touch me or I will put you in jail!" :roll:

You, sir, are part of the problem and for that I think you are despicable. There are few crimes worse than rape and to trivialise it or make it out that "they were asking for it, dressing like that" is completely absolving the perpetrator of responsibility. I can only be thankful that you are not the one who makes the laws and sits in court because if you were it'd be a whole lot less fun to live here.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: CrazyShiz

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
So, if Bin Laden were raped we should let him go?

Oh hell no. He should rot in jail AND be denied the Morning After pill. God knows the murder of over 3,000 people is equivalent to stealing...


Please think before you speak.

So now we have degrees of law breaking? Who sets that standard?

We have degrees of law breaking? Since when?

Since when is SPEEDING treated differently than ASSAULT?

Or MURDER treated differently than TAX EVASION?

If they are treated differently, they shouldn't be. I propose a 10 year sentence on ALL crimes, no matter their severity.

:disgust:

I'll say it again, please think before you speak.

Speeding isn't in the same category as assault. Speeding is a Moving Violation and assulat would be a Felony.

 

[fLum0x]

i don't even know where to begin with this one...

 

[JulesMaximus]

If she is pregnant I think the state should pay for her abortion.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Good that she was brought in due to warrant.
Bad that nurse supervisor let her own beliefs cloud her judgment - she'll pay with her job.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Ilikepiedoyou
at my school, rape is most often the fault of the victim

I really hope you are being sarcastic. :roll:

If not, how? All the perpetrator has to do is restrain himself, unless one is to believe some backward notion that men cannot resist such temptation and therefore the women are at fault.:|

I dont believe that its the victim's *fault*. However there are many many cases where the woman aggravates it in the moronic way they dress. It's disgusting and you'd think these people would have more sense to them than always yelling "Hey!! Look how my breasts are showing! And look how tight these jeans are!! But you better not touch me or I will put you in jail!" :roll:

You, sir, are part of the problem and for that I think you are despicable. There are few crimes worse than rape and to trivialise it or make it out that "they were asking for it, dressing like that" is completely absolving the perpetrator of responsibility. I can only be thankful that you are not the one who makes the laws and sits in court because if you were it'd be a whole lot less fun to live here.

Agreed.

TheCoolnessrune: Your saying that because some women dress like sluts, and some just look hot, therefore they are asking to be raped? W T F to put it mildly. Are you one of those Wahabi Muslim fanatics who are trying to blow up our troops in Iraq (not to mention innocent Iraqis)? Because that's exactly what they believe.

That's why they passed absurd laws that force women to cover themselves. They are small men who can obviously not control their urges (as are you), and many of them have committed atrocities that make them sub-human IMO.

Also, did you know that many rapist pick their target due to personal reasons, and don't just grab a random girl off the street? In that case clothing wouldn't matter sh!t.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: AMDUALY
First to say, OWNED

Dude, that response is rediculous. I pray to god that you never have to deal with a rape that hits close to home.

Your spelling is whats ridiculous.

The irony is almost painful.

My belly hurts from laughing.

I love watching the grammar/spelling police throw their "boomerang of correctness", and then watching it come back to only hit them square in the forehead.

 

[Aharami]

religious bigots piss me off

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Ilikepiedoyou
at my school, rape is most often the fault of the victim

I really hope you are being sarcastic. :roll:

If not, how? All the perpetrator has to do is restrain himself, unless one is to believe some backward notion that men cannot resist such temptation and therefore the women are at fault.:|

I dont believe that its the victim's *fault*. However there are many many cases where the woman aggravates it in the moronic way they dress. It's disgusting and you'd think these people would have more sense to them than always yelling "Hey!! Look how my breasts are showing! And look how tight these jeans are!! But you better not touch me or I will put you in jail!" :roll:

You, sir, are part of the problem and for that I think you are despicable. There are few crimes worse than rape and to trivialise it or make it out that "they were asking for it, dressing like that" is completely absolving the perpetrator of responsibility. I can only be thankful that you are not the one who makes the laws and sits in court because if you were it'd be a whole lot less fun to live here.

Hot dam :shocked: You guys are really fired up about this. I cant believe how worked up you guys are getting over a single news article. Where is the "I'll wait for benchmarks" mentality that I had supposed this forum followed? (The majority anyways)

Rougue, I'm very sorry to have aggravated you to such a disturbing level Seriously, I most likely view rape at a higher level than you do. It sickens me, and when it comes to rapists I have no problem wanting each one of them to die a slow, and very painful death. It doesn't bother me at all. I was merely saying that it would help *reduce* the number of rapes if women actually dressed sensibly instead of like sluts.

Rapists already have screws loose. But this generation of women dont see that I guess. They would rather take a screwdriver and see what happens when you take those loose screws out.

I agree its no one else's fault but the rapist. It's just the simple fact that women refuse to help their own situation.

Seriously guys, cool off a bit and get some fresh air. This is turning into a P&N thread.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Roguestar

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

Originally posted by: dennilfloss

Originally posted by: Ilikepiedoyou
at my school, rape is most often the fault of the victim

I really hope you are being sarcastic. :roll:

If not, how? All the perpetrator has to do is restrain himself, unless one is to believe some backward notion that men cannot resist such temptation and therefore the women are at fault.:|

I dont believe that its the victim's *fault*. However there are many many cases where the woman aggravates it in the moronic way they dress. It's disgusting and you'd think these people would have more sense to them than always yelling "Hey!! Look how my breasts are showing! And look how tight these jeans are!! But you better not touch me or I will put you in jail!" :roll:

You, sir, are part of the problem and for that I think you are despicable. There are few crimes worse than rape and to trivialise it or make it out that "they were asking for it, dressing like that" is completely absolving the perpetrator of responsibility. I can only be thankful that you are not the one who makes the laws and sits in court because if you were it'd be a whole lot less fun to live here.

Agreed.

TheCoolnessrune: Your saying that because some women dress like sluts, and some just look hot, therefore they are asking to be raped? W T F to put it mildly. Are you one of those Wahabi Muslim fanatics who are trying to blow up our troops in Iraq (not to mention innocent Iraqis)? Because that's exactly what they believe.

That's why they passed absurd laws that force women to cover themselves. They are small men who can obviously not control their urges (as are you), and many of them have committed atrocities that make them sub-human IMO.

Also, did you know that many rapist pick their target due to personal reasons, and don't just grab a random girl off the street? In that case clothing wouldn't matter sh!t.

You'd be surprised how often you hear that ****** from your average American male. That is held by sexists in many cultures.