politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That title is misleading. The article says doctors can write prescriptions for off-label treatments with patients permission.
It says that but further in it implies the doctor needs a reason to say no by giving reasons a doctor can say no. Good news though, feeling it violates their morals, ethics, or religion is a reason. Since it's or, any good doctor with morals is probably going to use that.
I wonder if this also covers HRT
You know what, that's an interesting (and I'm betting unintended) consequence
maybe even contraceptives and Plan B or medical variants of recreational drugs 😆 🍿
Read the actual bill a little now. Of course it explicitly excludes HRT and potentially other things.
😮 Thanks for the update
That's not what it says.
Under the proposed law, a doctor can prescribe a drug (or not) as they already do. It requires hospitals to dispense the drug if a doctor prescribed it (exception: the usual religious nonsense).
Currently hospitals can refuse to fill a prescription under some circumstances, if they disagree with the doctor.
Okay so reading these is hard because of all the subsections and references to other laws, but it trying to read it, everything is complicated. Not exactly. If the patient has any prescription from anywhere, as long as it falls into the fda specifications etc etc they must allow it to be administered no matter what, but they don't have to do the administration or dispensing. A doctor from outside and medicine from outside must be allowed in. If I'm reading the bill right, which is hard. Cudos to the news source for linking the bill.
So it's really just giving legal shelter to quack doctors.
Not exactly. It's taking away a guardrail that protects patients from quacks. If that results in a bad outcome, the quack is still responsible.