A New Mexico woman has filed an action in federal court claiming that when she asked nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona to shorten the string on her IUD, Olona instead pulled it out (a painful procedure), and then told her it that was a good thing because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I
don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."
So the way she's against abortion is to screw up people's birth control, making it more likely they need an abortion? Swift one there.
(Current medical findings show, by the way, that IUDs prevent pregnancy primarily by creating an environment hostile to sperm and impeding their movement, not by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. Not that the previous understanding would have excused Olona's behavior, but it's useful to know.)
Olona, of course, is claiming it was an accident, and that the IUD must not have been in right, but get this: She admitted these "accidents" happen to her a lot. "Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on
purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally
come out when I tug."
That sounds to me about as believable as "I accidently climbed on the counter and ate all the cookies." And a hell of a lot creepier.
Is physical violation, direct contradiction of patients' wishes, and ideological lectures what Rio Rancho Medical Center means by "a healing environment that takes care of the body, mind, and soul of patients and their families"? And if not, why does this woman still have a job?
Photo by Liz Henry.
More by this author:
