Dillards 82: Derick Spills the Tea

[bella8050]

I didn't know that about "hog" either. Maybe trying to sound a little more professional? I remember before he started school his Twitter handle was derick4him or something like that, now it's just his name.

Random note: Just realized the holidays are over and there was no announcement that they got a dog! Hoping they actually gave its some thought and realized it was too much for them right now.

[indianabones]

The University of Arkansas's mascot is the razorback hog. Maybe "law hog" is something the law students there call themselves?

I don't think Jill would have posted that whole thing on Instagram about him being halfway done with law school if he was planning on dropping out right afterwards.

[SisNancy]

Maybe he failed a class?  Grad school can have some high standards.  

[jozina]

23 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

That’s so strange how differently the various Catholic hospitals treat life threatening emergencies. I can think of at least 3 women that I know personally, who had surgeries for ectopic pregnancies at my local Catholic hospital. Absolutely never a doubt in anyone’s mind that of course they would do the procedure. It wouldn’t occur to me they would turn you away any more than if you needed your appendix out!  They even suggested a therapeutic abortion to a family member with out of control hyperemesis (she turned it down) . The only thing they don’t do is tubal ligations- so you need to go to another hospital for that, but that’s expected. 

It shouldn't occur to any Catholic hospital to turn away someone with an ectopic. The Catholic Church itself is fine with a salpingectomy/surgery to remove the tube for ectopic pregnancies.  As someone (my apologies, I missed your name and couldn't find the post again scrolling back) earlier on described well it's about the intent. The intent in a tubal ligation is to save the mother's life. The intent is not to kill the embryo. The embryo dying is an unfortunate, unavoidable but consequence. I've worked as an O&G doctor in a Catholic hospital and done them, but it took me a while to get my head around what the powers that be had deemed things we could or couldn't do.  Methotrexate to treat an ectopic seems to be debated - some say it's fine based on the parts of the pregnancy it targets, same say it isn't.  Salpingostomy/surgery to remove to pregnancy and try to save the tube is generally considered bad by the Catholic Church because the primary intent is to end the pregnancy.

The problem with ectopic pregnancies and salpingectomy is when you get people who either fancy themselves more Catholic than the pope, are using Catholicism as a thin veil to control other people's bodies or who just flat out don't understand what their own church actually teachers on the matter.  It's like the combined contraceptive pill - the Catholic Church considers it fine if the primary intention is to manage a medical problem, with the unintended effect being contraception.  Not fine if contraception if your primary intent.  But there seem to be Catholics in certain areas who either don't understand or have no interest in understanding and just run with "All contraception bad and against baby Jesus and the Pope!".

[medimus]

5 hours ago, jozina said:

It shouldn't occur to any Catholic hospital to turn away someone with an ectopic. The Catholic Church itself is fine with a salpingectomy/surgery to remove the tube for ectopic pregnancies.  As someone (my apologies, I missed your name and couldn't find the post again scrolling back) earlier on described well it's about the intent. The intent in a tubal ligation is to save the mother's life. The intent is not to kill the embryo. The embryo dying is an unfortunate, unavoidable but consequence. I've worked as an O&G doctor in a Catholic hospital and done them, but it took me a while to get my head around what the powers that be had deemed things we could or couldn't do.  Methotrexate to treat an ectopic seems to be debated - some say it's fine based on the parts of the pregnancy it targets, same say it isn't.  Salpingostomy/surgery to remove to pregnancy and try to save the tube is generally considered bad by the Catholic Church because the primary intent is to end the pregnancy.

The problem with ectopic pregnancies and salpingectomy is when you get people who either fancy themselves more Catholic than the pope, are using Catholicism as a thin veil to control other people's bodies or who just flat out don't understand what their own church actually teachers on the matter.  It's like the combined contraceptive pill - the Catholic Church considers it fine if the primary intention is to manage a medical problem, with the unintended effect being contraception.  Not fine if contraception if your primary intent.  But there seem to be Catholics in certain areas who either don't understand or have no interest in understanding and just run with "All contraception bad and against baby Jesus and the Pope!".

This is what we learnt in Catholic medical school during our ethics lessons about double intent (taught by a priest!)

Though are medical school also taught contraception, abortion, euthanasia (legal in that coutnry) etc

[Mama Mia]

6 hours ago, jozina said:

It shouldn't occur to any Catholic hospital to turn away someone with an ectopic. The Catholic Church itself is fine with a salpingectomy/surgery to remove the tube for ectopic pregnancies.  As someone (my apologies, I missed your name and couldn't find the post again scrolling back) earlier on described well it's about the intent. The intent in a tubal ligation is to save the mother's life. The intent is not to kill the embryo. The embryo dying is an unfortunate, unavoidable but consequence. I've worked as an O&G doctor in a Catholic hospital and done them, but it took me a while to get my head around what the powers that be had deemed things we could or couldn't do.  Methotrexate to treat an ectopic seems to be debated - some say it's fine based on the parts of the pregnancy it targets, same say it isn't.  Salpingostomy/surgery to remove to pregnancy and try to save the tube is generally considered bad by the Catholic Church because the primary intent is to end the pregnancy.

The problem with ectopic pregnancies and salpingectomy is when you get people who either fancy themselves more Catholic than the pope, are using Catholicism as a thin veil to control other people's bodies or who just flat out don't understand what their own church actually teachers on the matter.  It's like the combined contraceptive pill - the Catholic Church considers it fine if the primary intention is to manage a medical problem, with the unintended effect being contraception.  Not fine if contraception if your primary intent.  But there seem to be Catholics in certain areas who either don't understand or have no interest in understanding and just run with "All contraception bad and against baby Jesus and the Pope!".

That’s interesting about saving the tube not being considered ok, you’d think they’d like that as it preserves fertility. I know at my local Catholic Hospital they will try the medication route, and removing the pregnancy and saving the tube. I remember because I had been unaware either of those things were even possible. 

[ModestisHottest]

5 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

That’s interesting about saving the tube not being considered ok, you’d think they’d like that as it preserves fertility. I know at my local Catholic Hospital they will try the medication route, and removing the pregnancy and saving the tube. I remember because I had been unaware either of those things were even possible. 

Agreed! This is fascinating! I had to have  salpingostomy a few months ago and my biggest motivation was definitely saving my own life!! I was glad they were able to save the tube but it's so weird that that would make it unacceptable to the Catholic Church.  Either surgery saves the mother's life, why not do the one that doesn't also remove parts of her body too? 

[Galbin]

With reference to the case of abortion in Ireland, that NY Times article is inaccurate. Three separate independent reports (HSE, HIQA, and coroner's court) concluded that Savita Halappanaver died due to undetected sepsis. At the time abortion was legal to save the life of the mother, and if they had known she had sepsis they would have gone ahead and done an abortion. However, since nobody knew she had sepsis she was treated in the way second trimester miscarriages are managed in a lot of European countries, which is to let the miscarriage proceed without surgical intervention. In fact, the UK has had elective abortion for decades and this is also their standard procedure. You could have abortion available free to all, but if sepsis goes untreated you will still die as sepsis is fatal without prompt treatment. In fact, sepsis puts you on a 72 hour clock. I know this, as I have had it and nearly died from it.

This excellent documentary, which has been heralded for showing both sides of the story explains Savita's case really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S24yxcn379Y.

[RainbowSky]

Tubal ligation is not the same thing as...well...anything to save the mothers life during an ectopic pregnancy surgery.

[jozina]

15 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

That’s interesting about saving the tube not being considered ok, you’d think they’d like that as it preserves fertility. I know at my local Catholic Hospital they will try the medication route, and removing the pregnancy and saving the tube. I remember because I had been unaware either of those things were even possible. 

It's all about the intent.  If the intent is to save the mother's life then removing the tube is fine (shame the embryo's in there too and its life is ended as well).  Removing the pregnancy itself then you'd struggle with mental gymnastic where your intent wasn't to kill the embryo - that's the primary act you're doing).  The Catholic Church isn't really that fertility-at-all-costs though they often get that reputation - for instance they don't agree with IVF or sperm donation.  There's a certain internal logic that I could see the appeal of in their views about fertility and sex, even though I personally do not agree with them as a contracepting, previously abortion providing woman and think they are harmful.

If I had an ectopic pregnancy I would want my tube removed. The risk of another ectopic is too high for me personally, and I'd rather have IVF if it was a second ectopic.  A tube which an ectopic forms in is likely to be a troublesome tube.  Our bodies are pretty amazing, and your left fallopian tube can hoover up an egg from your right ovary.

[ModestisHottest]

2 hours ago, jozina said:

It's all about the intent.  If the intent is to save the mother's life then removing the tube is fine (shame the embryo's in there too and its life is ended as well).  Removing the pregnancy itself then you'd struggle with mental gymnastic where your intent wasn't to kill the embryo - that's the primary act you're doing).  The Catholic Church isn't really that fertility-at-all-costs though they often get that reputation - for instance they don't agree with IVF or sperm donation.  There's a certain internal logic that I could see the appeal of in their views about fertility and sex, even though I personally do not agree with them as a contracepting, previously abortion providing woman and think they are harmful.

If I had an ectopic pregnancy I would want my tube removed. The risk of another ectopic is too high for me personally, and I'd rather have IVF if it was a second ectopic.  A tube which an ectopic forms in is likely to be a troublesome tube.  Our bodies are pretty amazing, and your left fallopian tube can hoover up an egg from your right ovary.

And that would be a fine choice if you had an ectopic pregnancy but that wasn't my preference. I'm grateful I had a doctor who wasn't bound by semantics and could repair my tube (which I had, of course, given her my permission to remove if it looked really damaged).  Obviously, both removing and saving the tube would end the pregnancy (which would have ended anyway without treatment when my tube ruptured and I died) so it's a really silly distinction.  Just glad my doctor and I could make the best choice for my situation without the Catholic Church getting involved.

Also, not that anyone is asking, but we were very lucky and I got pregnant again immediately after we were cleared to try with a normal pregnancy and since this is our last child I don't need to worry about anymore ectopics. 

 

[Screamapillar]

If Derick did or does drop out of law school, I'm sure we'll eventually hear all about how it was someone else's fault.

[SorenaJ]

7 minutes ago, Screamapillar said:

If Derick did or does drop out of law school, I'm sure we'll eventually hear all about how it was someone else's fault.

Probably the ebil liberals. Or the gays. 

[Idlewild]

I don’t think he’ll drop out- he’s made too big a deal of it. I just wonder if they’re launching a mega grift to get him through. I know he babbled about scholarship but it’s got to be costing a lot. I’m not sure how it works in the US but here you have to do a law degree or a course that converts your non law degree to qualify you, then the bar or solicitors course, then if you want to practice law do a pupilage or training contract- which isn’t highly paid unless you’re taken on by one of the top corporate firms. Unless he’s being sponsored I would imagine money is tight- he may be soliciting media appearances to try and boost their income and this latest disclosure is to raise their profile. 

[fluffernutter]

My mom gave birth to me in the early 70's in a catholic hospital. She told me (as an adult) that they tried to get her to give me up for adoption because she wasn't married. I'm glad she didn't listen to them.  She was a great mom. ❤️

[viii]

2 hours ago, fluffernutter said:

My mom gave birth to me in the early 70's in a catholic hospital. She told me (as an adult) that they tried to get her to give me up for adoption because she wasn't married. I'm glad she didn't listen to them.  She was a great mom. ❤️

My mom gave birth to my eldest sister when she was 17 at a Catholic hospital. She was freshly married, but the nurses were still really awful to her, and treated her horribly due to her age. 

[Giraffe]

Not at a catholic hospital, but a friend of mine has significant physical deformities and the nurses outright called CPS on her because they believed being disabled automatically disqualified her from parenting. Sadly, those with disabilities face that ALL. THE. TIME when it comes to parenting/pregnancy. 

[libgirl2]

6 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

Probably the ebil liberals. Or the gays. 

Let's toss in the Catholics too. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

3 hours ago, Idlewild said:

I’m not sure how it works in the US but here you have to do a law degree or a course that converts your non law degree to qualify you, then the bar or solicitors course, then if you want to practice law do a pupilage or training contract- which isn’t highly paid unless you’re taken on by one of the top corporate firms. Unless he’s being sponsored I would imagine money is tight- he may be soliciting media appearances to try and boost their income and this latest disclosure is to raise their profile. 

Here you just have to pass the bar exam and find a job. If you decide to do something that isn’t legally considered practicing law, you don’t even have to take the bar exam. Most people take a bar prep course before the exam, but that’s not a big deal.

[FloraKitty35]

56 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

Let's toss in the Catholics too. 

Don't forget the feminists 

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

22 hours ago, ModestisHottest said:

Just glad my doctor and I could make the best choice for my situation without the Catholic Church getting involved.

 

So much this!

As a non-religious type, it's nuts to me to hear all these justifications for the Catholics doing x, y, and z but only under a, b, and c conditions. Stay out of my health care decisions, please and thanks.

I was born in a Catholic hospital in Ontario. Recently (OK, May 2019 - time flies!), the Ontario supreme court ruled that religious doctors must refer patients to doctors who will do whatever service the patient requires. I'm super annoyed that some Christian and Catholic doctors or hospitals fought this.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-religious-doctors-must-make-referrals-for-assisted-dying-abortion/

Alberta is trying to pass a bill saying doctors don't have to give referrals. Not sure that would hold up in the Supreme Court but I guess we'll see. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/conscience-rights-alberta-legislature-abortion-ucp-bill-207-1.5354209

[Born Skeptic]

22 hours ago, Idlewild said:

I’m not sure how it works in the US but here you have to do a law degree or a course that converts your non law degree to qualify you, then the bar or solicitors course, then if you want to practice law do a pupilage or training contract- which isn’t highly paid unless you’re taken on by one of the top corporate firms. Unless he’s being sponsored I would imagine money is tight- he may be soliciting media appearances to try and boost their income and this latest disclosure is to raise their profile. 

In most states in the US you need a 4 year Bachelor's degree to get into law school.  Law school is three more years followed by taking the bar exam in whichever states you wish to practice.  Most law students prep extensively for the bar exam.  Often law students do internships or clerkships during school breaks like Derick did last summer.

There are a few states that allow someone to take the bar exam without going to law school.  That is the exception rather than the rule though and very few people are able to pass the bar without a law school background.  

[Idlewild]

2 minutes ago, Born Skeptic said:

In most states in the US you need a 4 year Bachelor's degree to get into law school.  Law school is three more years followed by taking the bar exam in whichever states you wish to practice.  Most law students prep extensively for the bar exam.  Often law students do internships or clerkships during school breaks like Derick did last summer.

There are a few states that allow someone to take the bar exam without going to law school.  That is the exception rather than the rule though and very few people are able to pass the bar without a law school background.  

Thank you for the explanation. If he is intending to practice law then it’s a lengthy ( and likely costly) process - you’d like to think he’s scoped all this out before embarking on it. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, Idlewild said:

Thank you for the explanation. If he is intending to practice law then it’s a lengthy ( and likely costly) process - you’d like to think he’s scoped all this out before embarking on it. 

Some people with their JB get jobs working at firms in non-attorney roles so their employers pay for the bar exam.  

[Idlewild]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Some people with their JB get jobs working at firms in non-attorney roles so their employers pay for the bar exam.  

That happens here too- usually with high end corporate firms though. Maybe with his accountancy background he’s looking to do taxation law- can be very lucrative.