So, this happened.
Simoes says Borga was unfazed when another patient told her that he had just gotten out of prison, where he served time for murder. But her reaction was allegedly different when Simoes said that he did not work because he planned to go back to school and because of his HIV status.
Borga then allegedly asked Simoes how he got HIV, to which he responded, “I got it from unprotected sex.”
The complaint then says that “Dr. Borga closed the plaintiff’s file, put it down and looked at plaintiff with disgust on her face and asked, coldly, “Is that from sex with men?”
Simoes says he responded affirmatively and that, “immediately after hearing this, Dr. Borga proceeded to exit the room.”
After this consultation, no nurse or doctor came to see Simoes, even though he told them that he needed to take his HIV medication, according to the complaint.
When the hospital finally permitted Simoes to call his personal physician on the third day of his stay, he learned that the doctor had already spoken with Borga about Simoes’ medication, according to the complaint.
Borga allegedly responded: “You must be gay, too, if you’re his doctor.”
“Additionally, apparently realizing that plaintiff’s doctor had an accent, Dr. Borga exclaimed, ‘What, do you need a translator?’ to which plaintiff’s doctor had again responded that Dr. Borga needed to give plaintiff his HIV medication,” the complaint states.
“Dr. Borga responded to plaintiff’s doctor by stating, ‘This is what he gets for going against God’s will,’ and hung up the phone on plaintiff’s doctor.”
A metro mom is outraged about the way she says a local doctor treated her daughter. She says her daughter was raped over the weekend. And when they came in to seek treatment and get a rape exam, the doctor refused to help them.
It’s hard to imagine being turned away for a rape exam. But it turns out the nurses who specialize in those exams rotate every month to different hospitals around the metro. They are called Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) and they are specially trained to conduct those exams.
However, that’s not what this mother is angry about.
The mother said she and her daughter did file a police report about the rape. She’s angry that she brought her 24-year-old daughter to the Integris Canadian Valley Hospital emergency room on Sunday, and that the doctor who came in and saw them refused to do any sort of exam or to provide them with any emergency contraceptives.
Not only that, she says the doctor was less than sympathetic when dealing with her daughter, even though she was told she was a victim of a rape.
It turns out that the major weakness of medical conscience clause laws is that they presume the existence of a conscience.
9 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Maude LL
June 2, 2012 at 3:35 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Repulsive. (I’m talking about the doctors).
They both should get reparation. The refusal to check on the raped woman is a direct interference in police work. Investigations on rape are time sensitive. Unfortunately, I think it is likely the doctor would have been disingenuous in her report.
augustpamplona
June 2, 2012 at 5:14 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If the story is as reported, not doing an examination might have been the prudent thing to do.
“But it turns out the nurses who specialize in those exams rotate every month to different hospitals around the metro. They are called Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) and they are specially trained to conduct those exams.”
Not dispensing Plan B either is or borders on professional misconduct.
JohnS
June 2, 2012 at 9:25 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I rarely comment on FTB but I read a lot. This is nothing less than some of the stupidest and cruelest acts perpetrated by a learned person. Even if in the 2nd example the doctor did not have the expertise / clearance to perform a rape test, he had an obligation to treat the young woman like a human being as well as help her get the rape kit through a qualified person.
I’ve been an ass in my life and I’ve done things I’m not proud of. Never, though, have I been able to understand cruelty like this.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe
June 3, 2012 at 2:14 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
wow, that’s fucked up.
and my state is going to be voting on a massive “religious freedom” (read: exemptions from all laws and regulations they don’t like) referendum in 2 weeks that’ll likely make shit like that even more common: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Dakota_Religious_Freedom_Amendment,_Measure_3_%28June_2012%29
Amphiox
June 3, 2012 at 2:54 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Both of these “doctors” have committed gross violations of professional ethics, and both should lose their licenses to practice.
No Light
June 3, 2012 at 8:10 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Absolutely fucking disgusting. Case 1 would be grounds for legal action in my country, under hate crime laws.
Case 2 would have resulted in disciplinary action. However, here rape exams are usually performed by Police personnel, either the police surgeon or nurse practitioner. That way, victimised people aren’t brutaliised again by heartless bastards in the “caring” profession.
Doctorwithaconscience
June 3, 2012 at 9:48 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
As a physician, I am appalled. As an atheist who has worked with ‘colleagues’ like this, sadly, I am not surprised. I know a surgeon who prays with every patient (which is fine when the patients have sought this out) and has nearly refused to operate on people who don’t want to pray with him (not acceptable when it’s urgent/emergent surgery and he’s the surgeon on-call, they don’t have a choice of doctor). It’s truly sickening.
I cannot imagine being so ignorant and unprofessional as to not treat these people. I work in a position where emergencies present all the time. During trauma treatment and surgery, we get the offenders as well as the victims (bad guy gets shot by police, rapist gets cut or stabbed during attack) and we treat them, too. Whether we like it or not, we provide care, because that’s what you sign up for. You aren’t going to like or approve of all your patients. For example, I morally object to the lifestyle of a drug-dealer or pimp, or white supremacist with all the racist tattoos. But, especially in the case of emergency dispensation of care– you do your job.
Anyway, I agree that you cannot regulate a conscience where there isn’t one. When I think back to the application process for med school, I know a LOT of very qualified, competent and compassionate people who were turned away because their score on the admission test was 1 point lower than another applicants. These bigoted a$$holes got in instead and clearly have no business there. WOW.
M Groesbeck
June 3, 2012 at 12:58 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
From the perspective of the people pushing the “conscience clause” laws, the examples here are cases where the law is working precisely as intended. The whole point is that the laws give religious people the right to deny treatment to people they disapprove of. Eventually we’ll start to see a pattern of cases involving emergency care by doctors, nurses, EMTs, etc., that involve actual death (beyond the scattered cases I’ve read about in the past) — but that will still be within the “working as intended” category for the people pushing these laws.
Lou Doench
June 3, 2012 at 6:33 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Holy Fucking Shit… That is the worst thing I’ve read all day. No problem treating an ex-con or a murderer. But gay guy… no way, it will make Baby Jesus cry?