TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

SD Cops Using Forced Catheterization To Extract Urine From Suspects - “It would be completely improper for people to place a catheter on an individual of the opposite gender,” ACLU Lawyer Bowie said. “That would border on an unlawful assault, battery or rape.” - But with men it is somehow okay?

magnora7

July 11, 2016
265 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://policestatedaily.com/sd-cops-using-forced-catheterization-extract-urine-suspects/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title SD Cops Using Forced Catheterization To Extract Urine From Suspects - “It would be completely improper for people to place a catheter on an individual of the opposite gender,” ACLU Lawyer Bowie said. “That would border on an unlawful assault, battery or rape.” - But with men it is somehow okay?
Author

magnora7

Upvotes 265
Comments 83
Date July 11, 2016 7:48 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4scvxs/sd_cops_using_forced_catheterization_to_extract/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/sd-cops-using-forced-catheterization-to-extract.945743
https://theredarchive.com/post/945743

Comments

[+]trygold 10 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Unless they got a warrant I would say this falls under unreasonable search.

[–]v573v 25 points26 points27 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a medical procedure that puts the person at risk of injury.

There's no way you can convince me that a search that potentially injures a person suspected but not found guilty of a crime is anything but unreasonable.

What they did is one of the main causes of traumatic injury of the bladder and urethra.

The person should sue the hospital and worker that conducted the medical procedure without his consent.

[–]peacockj08 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

it's also rape, which is very illegal.

[–]overtmind 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's only rape when the state doesn't do it

[–]chavelah 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They do get warrants. Who cares? It's still unreasonable, and the state needs to lose some cases, make some massive payouts, and stop doing this shit.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, warrant should be the bare minimum to do something like this. Ideally, it wouldn't happen at all except in extremely rare cases. I wonder if other countries in Europe ever force-catheterize people to obtain urine for evidence?

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why would the police ever need to do this? The person is in custody, and if court order to collect his urine then they can simply keep him in custody till he goes. In a cup or on the floor.

[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Misses the point. Point is, documented fact says this is done to men. There is no outrage in any mass media. Point is if was done to women politicians would be condemning it in the news. This is all clear and pretty much clear cut. A great example of the shameful double standard of the treatment of men and women in society, contrary to the lies feminism tells us about women being the greater sufferers of hardship.

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is done to women, so this is not a gender issue.

It is just done to men 99% of the time because women do not refuse to pee in the cup themselves. The "ain't nobody watching me piss" attitude is just more common in males, and about 80% of DUIs are commited by males, and that is the most common reason for the forced testing.

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The double standard is horrible, but you can not combat an issue by saying fix the double standard. You have to fix the root cause of an issue. The issue here is that cops are over step their bounds, and physically assaulting people to collect evidence. This cruel and unusual punishment while you are still considered innocent of any and all crimes.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

there is NO way this is legitimate. if we have police shoving plastic tubes up peoples penises, we have a HUGE problem.

[–]magnora7[S] 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

Well, it's legit. We have a huge problem.

Alternate links about this story, since the original post link is apparently dead now:

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/crime/2016/07/01/police-use-catheters-force-collect-urine-samples/86577942/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/10/police-use-catheters-force-to-collect-urine-sample/

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/south_dakota_cops_collect_urine_samples_through_forced_catheterization_is_i

Also, it's apparently done with no anesthesia, for some reason (?), so it's extremely painful.

[–]prodiver 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

The articles are sensationalized and badly written (probably on purpose).

"The police" are not inserting urinary catheters.

If you read the articles you will see that the procedures "are conducted on a regular basis by health-care workers at hospitals," not by police.

As a paramedic I can tell you that this is done all over the country, and only when the patient refuses to have his blood drawn or take a voluntary urine test.

[–]MittenMagick 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

....Doesn't that make the urine test not voluntary if the options are "Consent to the urine test or we'll shove a catheter up your urethra and get your urine to test anyway"?

[–]prodiver 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

A drug test of some type is required by law, but you can choose the type of test you would like to take.

If you don't want a urinary catheter you can have a blood test, so catheterization is voluntary.

[–]MittenMagick 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That makes much more sense. Thanks.

[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So what happens if a woman refuses to take such a drug test? Is she forced as the men are? Would that be acceptable to you?

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I've never personally seen a woman refuse, but yes, if she did she would be forced.

This simply isn't a gender discrimination issue. Women tend to comply with the test, so they rarely have to be forced.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Is this something you would be required to do

Yes. I'd be fired if I refuse to transport them to the hospital.

If so, do you find it unethical?

Not at all. The law requires a drug/alcohol test if someone is involved in a drug/alcohol related crime involving a serious injury. The majority of these people have just killed or injured an innocent person, and I have no problem helping to collect the evidence needed to convict them.

People are saying "innocent until proven guilty" and "they haven't been convicted" here, but that's bullshit in this situation. When the blood of a child is covering your car, and you're too drunk to know that you even hit them, then there's really no question about your guilt.

[–]x-system 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When that happens , do they forego the trial. Since there is no question about guilt, I assume that they do forego the trial. That must save a lot of time when there is no question about guilt.

Would you do this to a woman as well, strap her down, put a device in her vagina and extra whatever is needed AND would you feel the same way about it.

[–]prodiver -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Would you do this to a woman as well, strap her down, put a device in her vagina and extra whatever is needed AND would you feel the same way about it.

Yes, except no one would put a urinary catheter in a vagina, since there's no urine in there.

A women would be treated the exact same way in this situation, and a quick google search will show you that it has been. This discussion has nothing to do with gender.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Transport is fine, but are you actually required to do medical procedures on someone that refuses the procedure?

The nurses in the hospital do the catheterizations, not me.

I do other things on a daily basis to people that refuse, however. If you are not mentally capable of consenting to a procedure then I do not need consent to do it. As long as the procedure is in your best interest or required by law then it can be done, even if you don't want it.

That included intoxicated people, which is what this thread is about.

Some probably that did nothing wrong (i.e. the police caught the wrong guy), perhaps even a few that were maliciously sent to the hospital to have a medical procedure done on them against their will.

That's not true at all. Where I live all of them have been involved in a DUI related car crash. The majority have just killed or injured an innocent person. The rest have usually destroyed a building or other expensive property.

When someone's car is on top of a dead family and the registered owner is wandering around drunk with injuries consistent with the damage to the car it's impossible for the police to get the wrong person.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Of course people are arrested for other drug related issues, but forced drug testing isn't done for non DUI crimes.

The police cannot force any medical procedures at all. The procedures are forced by doctors/nurses. The police simply stand outside the room and wait, just like they do for any medical issue for any arrested person.

The police don't order the tests, don't perform the procedures, and have no say in anything. If you disagree with it be mad at the politicians that passed the law requiring it.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]prodiver1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well if you read the article you'd know that the case in hand is about a guy who was forced to take a drug test because the police that came to his house for a domestic disturbance call decided that the guy had become "fidgety".

The article is full of inaccurate information, so I'm going to assume this is false as well. That is illegal and doesn't happen. The medical staff would never go along with it.

[–]jsphillips86 -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I have to cath to pee. Would not say "extremely" painful. Maybe if it is being forced on you, but idk.

[–]masculinistasshole 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That doesn't change the fact that it's non-consensual, painful handling of male genitalia. What do we call that when it's done to women?

[–]General_GTFO 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not just handling. Forced penetration. Rape by definition, really.

[–]richardnorth 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ah that male privilege, it's really everywhere isnt it.

[–]overtmind 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Have we confirmed that a women wouldn't get this treatment if she refused?

So far someone just said that they haven't seen it because it's an unlikely demographic and they always cave and give a voluntary sample.

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Woman sues Sevier County for 'forced catheterization'

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4786992

[–]Vandechoz 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

healthcare workers at the Wagner and Platte hospitals routinely preform the extractions without anesthetic

WHAT THE FUCK

[–]prodiver 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That's normal.

All urinary catheters are inserted without anesthetic, except for the tiny amount of lidocaine thats in the lubricant.

It's a slightly uncomfortable, but not painful, procedure.

[–]overtmind 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It seems like a pretty difficult thing to anesthetize without even further complications. I'm not a medical professional, so I'm just taking a guess here, but wouldn't they have to do some kind of spinal block or something in order to numb internal parts like the bladder and urethra? It just seems medically proper to do it "without anesthesia," since it also seems that it if they did, it could involve greater complications and issues. In this light, I doubt that the medical staff are doing it or are being coerced to do it to "fuck with/hurt" the patient on purpose.

[–]prodiver 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

wouldn't they have to do some kind of spinal block or something in order to numb internal parts like the bladder and urethra

Internal organs like the bladder have no pain receptors.

No anesthetic would ever be used for a urinary catheter. Giving it would be 10x as painful and dangerous as the actual procedure.

[–]overtmind -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well there you have it, so enough "OMG WTF NO ANESTHETIC!?" from people, then.

[–]seemslucky -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait. What? There's definitely nociceptors in your bladder. It's what gives you the sensation to urinate.

Although, the catheter doesn't cause pain to your bladder. It gets inserted, a balloon is filled with saline, the catheter is carefully pulled outward to lightly wedge the balloon so that urine doesn't leak out.

It's not really a painful procedure (unless the wrong size catheter is used), just uncomfortable.

It's still shitty that it is ever done against someone's will.

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's definitely nociceptors in your bladder.

Those are stretch receptors, so you know when your bladder is full.

You literally cannot feel pain from anything touching or poking your bladder like a catheter would.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That would seem to be an outright lie:
http://patient.info/doctor/catheterising-bladders

Urinary catheterisation should not be undertaken lightly and should be avoided wherever possible: it is painful (rated above lumbar puncture and arterial blood gases).[1] It may also cause significant morbidity and even mortality.

The questions are:
* Why catheterise when a blood sample is simpler?
* Are men and women treated alike?

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not a lie. patient.info is hardy a reliable medical source. Catheterisation is one of the most common medical procedures done, and it's done to the sickest individuals, since almost every bedridden person in the world has one.

I've had it done myself. The idea of it is scary, but it's painless.

Why catheterise when a blood sample is simpler?

Because the person has refused to have a blood draw or to give a urine sample voluntarily. You cannot take blood from a person unless they are perfectly still, so a blood draw cannot be done without the person's cooperation.

Are men and women treated alike

I've never seen a women refuse to give a voluntary sample, but if one did she would be treated the same. A quick google also search shows that yes, it has been done to women.

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Probably hurts more if you fight it.

[–]ld2gj 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

And...the reason they cannot take blood?

[–]magnora7[S] 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Good question...

I did a little looking, and I think the reason they do the catheters, is to get around the recent restrictions made on drawing blood for DUI. http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/sd-courts-making-dui-blood-draws-more-difficult-for-officers/article_176ced8c-f338-5184-8a8d-dc57bdcd8369.html

And also, why don't they just hold the people until they pee? Why the rushing of the forced catheterization? It almost seems like they deliberately want to torture people, especially if the no anesthesia thing is a common practice. So fucked up.

[–]moriginal 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

People could just let out a slow trickle down their leg and it would be incredibly difficult to collect into a sample. Also it's cruel and unusual as well

[–]magnora7[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Can't they just like put a baggie around the guys dick until he pees

[–]moriginal 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

HAHAHAHHA don't ask me I'm not a lawyer!

[–]POSVT 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a condom catheter, though you'd want to change those out pretty frequently.

[–]ld2gj 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So...assault is the better option? Please baby let there be a lawsuit!

[+]prodiver -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Paramedic here. I'm the guy that takes the inmates/arrested individuals to the hospital for this procedure.

They are given the option of a blood draw or voluntary urine test, and they have refused. That is why the procedure is forced.

[–]Nwokilla 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Wtf. How is this legal

[–]prodiver -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Because the law says it is.

If a person is involved in a DUI and kills someone in a car crash, and refuses all forms of drug/alcohol testing, I have no problem with the state forcing a test.

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with it.

[–]overtmind 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

So you agree that the state should be able to collect evidence from [inside your body] against your will?

I don't. Not even if they killed my kid, under any circumstances. They can prove guilt by many other means. As it is prosecutors have insanely high, almost certain, conviction rates.

[–]prodiver -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you agree that the state should be able to collect evidence from you against your will?

In the case of drug/alcohol testing, where the evidence is going to biologically disappear in a matter of hours, yes.

[–]richardnorth 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just out of curiosity, are women also forced this way? I'm assuming they're exempt, but you seem to be in the loop

[–]prodiver -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I've never seen a woman refuse to take a drug test, so I've never seen a woman forced to do it.

There's nothing exempting women, they just tend to do it voluntarily. Plus the demographics that need the tests are male-dominated, so it's rarely needed from a woman.

Plus, it does happen to women on occasion...

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4786992

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]prodiver -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Once you open that can of worms, you cannot close it. Today it's this, tomorrow it's that.

The "slippery slope" is another can of worms...

If you can tell me you have forced this procedure on a woman before, then the ethics behind it can be independently debated.

I've never seen a woman refuse to take the voluntary test, so no woman has ever been forced.

The type of people that refuse are homophobic "no dude is going to watch me piss" type people that have just committed a violent drug/alcohol related crime, and that demographic is 99% male.

If a female ever refused, she would be forced, but I've never seen it.

EDIT: After a google search I see that it does happen to women too...

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4786992

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You know something? There was this great video I saw posted up which had somebody just like you going on about waterboarding and how he was an advocate for it. The guy then got put through it himself and only lasted a few seconds and immediately reversed his position.

Before you advocate shit like this you should seriously take a moment to think with your brain, the only reason people support this sort of breach of human rights is because they never experience it themselves.

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

the only reason people support this sort of breach of human rights is because they never experience it themselves.

I've had a urinary catheter myself twice in my life, so that arguement is invalid.

It is scary the first time because you don't know what to expect, but it is a painless (yet uncomfortable) procedure.

Unlike waterboarding, it is also optional in this situation. They people could have a blood test or pee in a cup if they prefer. Catheterization is only used as a last resort if they refuse to take a traditional drug test.

[–]Lethn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Then you're either a lunatic or a serious masochist.

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And you are seriously ignorant of what urinary catheterization actually is.

Any "serious masochist" would be bored to death, since it's painless. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be done to every hospitalized person in the world on a routine basis.

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Regardless of your personal feelings on it ( frankly it sounds like the same sort of arguments people have about circumcision ) you're still sticking a tube in someones dick without their permission, under normal cirtcumstances, that's assault.

Pain issues aside, it's still an extremely invasive and forceful procedure, this is the equivalent of airport searches and stop and frisk.

[–]ld2gj 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Would it not be easier to have blood drawn even if they refuse?

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You can't take blood from someone without their consent.

In some places it's illegal, and everywhere it's physically impossible, since it requires the person remain perfectly still in order to place a needle in a vein.

[–]ld2gj 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So sticking a catheter up in them is easier and legal?

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, on both counts.

[–]POSVT -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Any medical professional, from an MD on down to a EMT or even a CNA who participates in any way in these disgustingly unethical procedures should have thier licenses, degrees, and certifications stripped and then be thrown in jail for battery &/or sexual assault. This is never ever ok under any circumstances, not even to save a busload of orphans and their newly adopted puppies.

There's a reason consent & autonomy are one of the fucking pillars of medical ethics.

And I say this as someone in the medical field who's put a lot of time and effort to get there.

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Lots of medical fields, including emergency medicine and psych, can't get consent from a lot of the patients.

It is not the "fucking pillar" of anything.

[–]POSVT -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Those two exceptions, and every other that I'm aware of, are extremely limited exceptions where a patient is not able or competent to consent. In those scenarios, you're also almost always acting in the presumed best interests of the patient. That is in no way is comparable to ignoring a competent adult's consent and violating their body anyway, nor can that former be used to justify the latter.

It is not the "fucking pillar" of anything.

Consent is under autonomy, one of the 4 pillars of medical ethics, and honestly the most important one.

[–]Florient 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And of course, feminists won't say a word about it. Because they do not care about body autonomy or equality. Feminism is literally the opposite of anti-sexism ad bigotry.

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminism is "all white men are at fault and responsible for making my life easy".

[–]Florient 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perfectly put.

[+]elokr 10 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

a Pierre man charged with felony drug ingestion 

Since when was consumption illegal?

Possession, distribution, operating under the influence....I have never heard of anyone getting arrested for consumption

Apparently it's a Dakota law.

[–]magnora7[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good observation. That is pretty strange.

[–]Mhrby 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

any archived version?

Because the article itself doesn't say anywhere, from what I can see, that it is only for women it is a problem if done by opposite gender, it is not even implied that it is okay for a woman to do it to a man, but perhaps they changed it?

[–]JonSnowsGhost 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your post title is very misleading. The article never says whether or not it's more okay to do it to men or women, just that if performed, it should be by someone of the same sex.
In fact, the article barely addresses men or women in general and mostly focuses on the actual topic of forced catheterization.

[–]HotSauciness 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On the plus side, it sounds like the ACLU is waking up to double-standards against men.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JonSnowsGhost 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Back up there man. There's a huge damn difference between collecting urine samples and murdering people.

[–]prodiver 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And cops don't do it. Nurses do it under state law. The cops don't order or perform the procedure.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter