A Must Read!

[PreMedMommy]

Just curious to see if this article I ran across angers anyone other than me. I find the tone of the article to be dangerous, biased, and 100% emotionally driven rather than based on logical consideration.

http://www.self.com/livingwell/articles/2007/05/0607_drdenial_1_of_7

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gsmithers68]

I think the article raises a legitimate problem in health care when someone's own personal values cross into the way they ethically evaluate situations... especially related to abortion, birth control, morning after pills, etc. Although the article seems to be written from a raging bitch's perspective I think the message is just and the statistics are staggering. 18% of physicians don't feel inclined to even refer someone to who will perform/write a morally controversial procedure/prescription. I bet most of that 18% don't even tell the patient of alternative approaches to treatments plans they do follow if they are morally controversial in their eyes. That is medicine and the cold reality of a subjective mind of a physician dominating the objective purpose of healthcare.

 

[Divine Furor]

While an interesting read, methinks The Lounge might be a better place for this thread.

 

[Critical Mass]

I guess I don't understand why doctors who have these sorts of objections can't simply defer to another nearby doctor. If I had a problem with something like that, I don't think that it would be too much to ask to turn to one of my nearby colleagues and say, "Hey this lady needs a script."

 

[dragonark]

I believe the problem with that reasoning is that they (doctors refusing treatment) believe that passing the buck is just as bad (or just slightly worse) as performing the treatment themselves. I liked the article, and sincerely hope things are not as bad as they are painted. However, this makes me never want to work for a hospital with a religious code, as I don't get my morality from a book.

With that...

Every sperm is saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacred, every sperm is greeeeeeeeeeat.
If a sperm is waaaaaaaaaaaaasted, God gets quite irate.

 

[SeminoleFan3]

I don't believe in the morality of the morning-after pill or abortion. Nor would I refer my patient to a doctor who would. In my opinion, referring them to a physician who would perform the procedure makes me just as complicit as if I were to perform it myself.

 

[MystA RavE]

I don't see this being much of a problem considering that if one doctor isn't willing to do something, there are hundreds more that would be willing.

Can a doctor deny something based on his beliefs? Isn't it that he/she could only deny if it compromises the patient's health?

 

[MystA RavE]

"I don't believe in the morality of the morning-after pill or abortion. Nor would I refer my patient to a doctor who would. In my opinion, referring them to a physician who would perform the procedure makes me just as complicit as if I were to perform it myself."

Sorry forgot to quote using the button...


I would really want to hear your views on it if your condom broke during MS-1...

 

[PreMedDocMD]

This might sound bad...but I feel that doctor's have no business in religion. It can get in the way, like in the article. Plus, its hard to believe in a higher power after seeing so much evil being a doctor. Just my opinion.

 

[HailMary]

In my opinion, you are far more morally guilty if you deny a rape victim emergency contraception that she desperately needs than if you prescribe it. Everyone is entitled to their own belief, but you cannot force your patients to believe the same things you do. By denying them care or a referral, you're grossly abusing your power as a physician to propagate your own belief system. thumbdown

 

[geneticclone]

This might sound bad...but I feel that doctor's have no business in religion. It can get in the way, like in the article. Plus, its hard to believe in a higher power after seeing so much evil being a doctor. Just my opinion.

Well others obviously have other opinions. I actually agree with the doctor, if its against his religion he is powerless to do anything else. Although it would have been best to refer the patient to another doctor.

 

[copingmethods]

In my opinion, you are far more morally guilty if you deny a rape victim emergency contraception that she desperately needs than if you prescribe it. Everyone is entitled to their own belief, but you cannot force your patients to believe the same things you do. By denying them care or a referral, you're grossly abusing your power as a physician to propagate your own belief system. thumbdown

Very well put.

 

[Climberak]

Even if a doctor doesn't have the same religious views as a patient, they are still protected by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, that sometimes leads to a compromise in a patient's health, but doctors' rights have to be protected as well. Just as a person can be refused service at a restaurant, a doctor can refuse service to a patient.

The author loves her rhetoric, I especially liked the poor lady who cried and despaired in the car for 45 minutes and then pulled herself together to drive somewhere else...classic.

 

[chanjurban]

In my opinion, you are far more morally guilty if you deny a rape victim emergency contraception that she desperately needs than if you prescribe it. Everyone is entitled to their own belief, but you cannot force your patients to believe the same things you do. By denying them care or a referral, you're grossly abusing your power as a physician to propagate your own belief system. thumbdown

THe key words here are "in my opinion" which is exactly what most people posting seem to think is the problem...

The fact is that this is a morally and ethically diverse society. A balance has to be met and if you block people that have certain beliefs and morals from practicing - our already tight health care system would be in even worse shape.

In truth, I think it would be a huge mistake to force doctors to practice medicine in a way that conflicts with their moral beliefs. However, I feel that there needs to be a lot more clarity as to what those beliefs are. There also needs to be acknowledgement on the doctors' part that patients may have different values than their own. At the very least, they should be willing to give their patients a list of alternate health care providers.

If (for example) a non-abortion provider is concerned about specifically referring patients to abortion providers, then they should simply provide a list of all women's health services available in the area and let the patient sort it out for themselves.

I can hear people yelling that this doesn't provide optimum patient care, but as I said, a compromise of some sort has to be reached.

 

[8744]

In my opinion, you are far more morally guilty if you deny a rape victim emergency contraception that she desperately needs than if you prescribe it. Everyone is entitled to their own belief, but you cannot force your patients to believe the same things you do. By denying them care or a referral, you're grossly abusing your power as a physician to propagate your own belief system. thumbdown

See, that's the problem with the Cult of Medical School. They feed you the propaganda that you have some kind of power as a physician when in fact you have very little except the power to talk and talk and talk. In the end, the patients are going to do what they want to do and you will see the true limits of your so-called power.

A patient who insists that you violate your moral beliefs for her sake is forcing her beliefs on you and not the other way around. You ain't propagating nothin'.

Besides, as many of you are obviously unaware, not only do most of the states explicitely protect a physician from criminal or civil jeapordy for refusing to refer for abortions but in some states, refering a woman for an abortion from a publicly funded hospital is against the law and if somebody wanted to make an issue of it, you could get fired or fined for doing it.

Sorry this confilicts with your self-righteous exuberance but there it is.

 

[copingmethods]

Even if a doctor doesn't have the same religious views as a patient, they are still protected by the U.S. constitution. Unfortunately, that sometimes leads to a compromise in a patient's health, but doctors' rights have to be protected as well. Just as a person can be refused service at a restaurant, a doctor can refuse service to a patient.

But as the article pointed out, if the patient doesn't know about emergency contraception, they could be withholding treatment without the patient having any knowledge of it. I think it's pretty unethical to not even mention it as an option to someone, so they could at least go see another doctor who would prescribe it. In that case, they're actually making the decision for the patient.

 

[riceman04]

I think the article raises a legitimate problem in health care when someone's own personal values cross into the way they ethically evaluate situations... especially related to abortion, birth control, morning after pills, etc. Although the article seems to be written from a raging bitch's perspective I think the message is just and the statistics are staggering. 18% of physicians don't feel inclined to even refer someone to who will perform/write a morally controversial procedure/prescription. I bet most of that 18% don't even tell the patient of alternative approaches to treatments plans they do follow if they are morally controversial in their eyes. That is medicine and the cold reality of a subjective mind of a physician dominating the objective purpose of healthcare.

Very well stated!

 

[realitybias]

This is all good and fine, but what do we do when we have heart surgeons saying that heart transplants are against their religion whenever patients are brought to them? What about doctors who start refusing to treat women, because their religion forbids them from contact with women? What about docs who refuse to do emergency abortions, even when it would save the woman's life and the woman consents? Hell, before today, I would have used "What about doctors who refuse to issue the morning after pill to rape victims?"

Yes, doctors DO have freedom, and yes, they do have rights to practice as they want in a capitalistic society. However, this does not give them the license to threaten public health with their own beliefs. Doctors who do not want to issue certain kinds of care should NOT put themselves in the position where the need may come up to issue that kind of care. If he does, he is willfully putting himself in the position where he is endangering the health of his patients. In the end, the liability lies with the doctor, no one else. If a doctor feels he cannot provide the morning after pill, he should not work in an emergency room where such may be requested, or else he can rightly be viewed as a threat to public health.

 

[geneticclone]

This is all good and fine, but what do we do when we have heart surgeons saying that heart transplants are against their religion whenever patients are brought to them? What about doctors who start refusing to treat women, because their religion forbids them from contact with women? What about docs who refuse to do emergency abortions, even when it would save the woman's life and the woman consents? Hell, before today, I would have used "What about doctors who refuse to issue the morning after pill to rape victims?"

Yes, doctors DO have freedom, and yes, they do have rights to practice as they want in a capitalistic society. However, this does not give them the license to threaten public health with their own beliefs. Doctors who do not want to issue certain kinds of care should NOT put themselves in the position where the need may come up to issue that kind of care. If he does, he is willfully putting himself in the position where he is endangering the health of his patients. In the end, the liability lies with the doctor, no one else. If a doctor feels he cannot provide the morning after pill, he should not work in an emergency room where such may be requested, or else he can rightly be viewed as a threat to public health.

No cardiologist would refuse to do a heart transplant otherwise he would not have become a cardiologist, no doctor would refuse women patients, and no doctor will refuse to do a abortion if the situation is life threatning. Otherwise they would not have become doctors. However, this case is different as its a emergency contraceptive.

 

[8744]

This is all good and fine, but what do we do when we have heart surgeons saying that heart transplants are against their religion whenever patients are brought to them? What about doctors who start refusing to treat women, because their religion forbids them from contact with women? What about docs who refuse to do emergency abortions, even when it would save the woman's life and the woman consents? Hell, before today, I would have used "What about doctors who refuse to issue the morning after pill to rape victims?"

Yes, doctors DO have freedom, and yes, they do have rights to practice as they want in a capitalistic society. However, this does not give them the license to threaten public health with their own beliefs. Doctors who do not want to issue certain kinds of care should NOT put themselves in the position where the need may come up to issue that kind of care. In the end, the liability lies with the doctor, no one else. If a doctor feels he cannot provide the morning after pill, he should not work in an emergency room where such may be requested, or else he can rightly be viewed as a threat to public health.

The trouble is that you guys are zealots. You have a fanatical desire for everyone in the world to not only think but to act the same.

You need to not sweat things. The world is not going to end if a few physicians here or there are so opposed to abortion that they refuse to have anything to do with it. I thought we were supposed to be celebrating diversity.

As for your other slippery-slope possibilites, well, I guess all I can tell you is that most of medicine is not the ethical minefield you believe it to be. I can think of a lot of reasons not to do heart transplants but religious considerations are not one of them. On the other hand, if there is cardiothoracic surgeon out there who specialized in heart transplantation just so he could later refuse to do them on religious grounds, well, I guess we're all going to survive your red herrings and muddying the waters.

 

[8744]

No cardiologist would refuse to do a heart transplant otherwise he would not have become a cardiologist, no doctor would refuse women patients, and no doctor will refuse to do a abortion if the situation is life threatning. Otherwise they would not have become doctors. However, this case is different as its a emergency contaceptive.

There is a difference between an ectopic pregnancy and normal interuterine pregnancy. One is a medical emergency and the other is not, for starters. Generally, pregnancy is not life-threatening in the Western world. I can think of a few cases where it is (like ecclampsia) but most abortions are elective and for the convenience of the mother.

Consider also that a normal interuterine pregnancy is not a disease and does not, strictly speaking, require either a cure or a treatment other than delivery. Look at it from that perspective and even some of you non-religious people who feel uneasy about abortion can finally find some other reason to jsutify your distaste for the procedure.

 

[doinmybest5840]

Is the church against vasectomies? Because if that's acceptable but birth control is not, that's crap.

I am okay with someone choosing not to do a procedure because of religion reasons, but I think it is wrong that some religious doctors won't even INFORM patients of all their options. You can say, "Hey, you can get EC, but I won't give it to you for religious reasons." Stupid.

Religion causes so many problems, it's sad. It's the main reason why someone I know became an atheist.

 

[gsmithers68]

There is a difference between an ectopic pregnancy and normal interuterine pregnancy. One is a medical emergency and the other is not, for starters. Generally, pregnancy is not life-threatening in the Western world. I can think of a few cases where it is (like ecclampsia) but most abortions are elective and for the convenience of the mother.

Consider also that a normal interuterine pregnancy is not a disease and does not, strictly speaking, require either a cure or a treatment other than delivery. Look at it from that perspective and even some of you non-religious people who feel uneasy about abortion can finally find some other reason to jsutify your distaste for the procedure.

Well said, but from an anthropological point of view I would say an 'inconvenience' to the mother is a blunder. There are so so many socio-economic and psychological reasons a woman may have evaluated before having an abortion. Having a child is life-changing and not a simple inconvenience. These reasons alone are sufficient in my opinion for electing to have/perform the operation. Now looking at it from an objective perspective of the procedure I see where you are coming from and how can visualize the procedure as truly elective but with a holistic focus on the patient I can justify to myself why people can/and will do this procedure for women.

 

[8744]

Well said, but from an anthropological point of view I would say an 'inconvenience' to the mother is a blunder. There are so so many socio-economic and psychological reasons a woman may have evaluated before having an abortion that are not a simple inconveniences but rather valid reasons in my opinion for electing to have the operation. Now looking at it from an objective perspective of the procedure I see where you are coming from and how can visualize the procedure as truly elective but with a hollistic focus on the patient I can justify to myself why people can/and will do this procedure for women.

...but never the less not, repeat not, a medical problem and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, none of my business. An ectopic pregnancy or ecclampsia, on the other hand, are medical problems for which I'll gladly consult OB.

Just an aside, we once had a patient whose presenting complaint, once she got through triage, was "I want an abortion." Even if I believed in abortion, there is no way in hell I'd wake up the OB resident at 2AM (or even bother her at any time) to come down and do a consult for that.

 

[8744]

Is the church against vasectomies? Because if that's acceptable but birth control is not, that's crap.

I am okay with someone choosing not to do a procedure because of religion reasons, but I think it is wrong that some religious doctors won't even INFORM patients of all their options. You can say, "Hey, you can get EC, but I won't give it to you for religious reasons." Stupid.

Religion causes so many problems, it's sad. It's the main reason why someone I know became an atheist.

So much for celebrating diversity.

 

[pirata]

As a person who has sat with many, many women through rape exams, I thankfully have not run into a physician that refuses to prescribe emergency contraception. In fact, it is pretty standard practice to run a pregnancy test and if it's not positive (i.e. verify she was not pregnant before the assault) prescribe Plan B along with the standard anti-STD cocktail. It is as important, if not more so, as those anti-STD medications to the woman who has been assaulted. Moreover, in all likelihood a woman isn't going to find herself in an ER for a rape kit at 9 am on a weekday, but 2 am on a Saturday, where providing emergency contraception within its effective time-frame is even more critical. If the care is not provided at the ER, more than likely that means the woman will not even be able to get a prescription until the following Monday, and at that point in all likelihood it is too late.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, it is no more fair to deny a woman who has been raped the means to protect herself against unwanted pregnancy than to deny her the means to combat the unwanted STDs she might have been exposed to during the assault. If you can't do that, excuse yourself from her case and assign her to someone that can provide her the full care she needs. Period.

 

[apnea]

With that...

Every sperm is saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacred, every sperm is greeeeeeeeeeat.
If a sperm is waaaaaaaaaaaaasted, God gets quite irate.

i sort of just fell in love with you a little.

 

[DogzRool]

A patient who insists that you violate your moral beliefs for her sake is forcing her beliefs on you and not the other way around.

So then it’s a stalemate - the hypothetical “abortion-seeking” patient and hypothetical “morally-opposed” doctor stare at each other until one blinks? The problem here is the patient always loses this particular contest. As you say, there are every few instances where the physician would be in legal trouble because...

most of the states explicitely protect a physician from criminal or civil jeapordy for refusing to refer for abortions.

There is no "forcing her beliefs" option for the patient.

Sorry this confilicts with your self-righteous exuberance but there it is.

I’d say there’s plenty of self-righteous exuberance to go around here…(just tweakin' ya PB!)

 

[DogzRool]

The trouble is that you guys are zealots. You have a fanatical desire for everyone in the world to not only think but to act the same.

Whoa! I can think of more than a few religious types to whom the labels “zealot” and “fanatical” apply. Be careful of the name-calling, dear Bear.

You need to not sweat things. The world is not going to end if a few physicians here or there are so opposed to abortion that they refuse to have anything to do with it. I thought we were supposed to be celebrating diversity.

I’m really all for diversity but I don’t think it needs to be at the expense of a traumatized woman who has just been raped and doesn’t want to potentially carry her rapist’s child.

 

[DogzRool]

...but never the less not, repeat not, a medical problem and therefore, as far as I'm concerned, none of my business. An ectopic pregnancy or ecclampsia, on the other hand, are medical problems for which I'll gladly consult OB.

Wait, psychological issues aren’t medical? I bet there are a few psychiatrists who would disagree with you.

 

[realitybias]

The trouble is that you guys are zealots. You have a fanatical desire for everyone in the world to not only think but to act the same.

You need to not sweat things. The world is not going to end if a few physicians here or there are so opposed to abortion that they refuse to have anything to do with it. I thought we were supposed to be celebrating diversity.

As for your other slippery-slope possibilites, well, I guess all I can tell you is that most of medicine is not the ethical minefield you believe it to be. I can think of a lot of reasons not to do heart transplants but religious considerations are not one of them. On the other hand, if there is cardiothoracic surgeon out there who specialized in heart transplantation just so he could later refuse to do them on religious grounds, well, I guess we're all going to survive your red herrings and muddying the waters.

Hear that swoosh? Its you, completely missing the point on one hand, or on the other hand, you completely proving my point. If there is a cardiothoracic surgeon out there, he is there because he is not morally opposed to doing his job (for if he were, as you so correctly point out, he would not have put himself in the situation to begin with). If there is an doctor out there who doesn't believe in blood transfusions for religious reasons, or doesn't believe in touching a woman's skin for religious reasons, then they would not be working in an emergency room, would they? The point is, if you believe your morals are going to get in the way of giving sound MEDICAL (read MEDICAL, scientific, well-reasoned, NOT religious or moral) advice, then you should not put yourself in the position to MAKE those decisions.

Else, you are letting your morals interfere with the medical advice that you give. There are some people who are not even aware of their options, and if a physician will not scientifically point out all of the options available to a patient, he is not doing his job, REGARDLESS of what his beliefs are. If a physician puts himself in a situation where he may have to make decisions that are opposed to his morals, then he should be prepared to put his morals aside or step away from that position.

If a woman gets raped, give her the damn pill, send her to someone who will, or step away from the job and rethink your loyalties, for if they are to something beyond reason and and patients best interest, then the two letters after your name are no better than the lack care you would provide.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Even if a doctor doesn't have the same religious views as a patient, they are still protected by the U.S. constitution. Unfortunately, that sometimes leads to a compromise in a patient's health, but doctors' rights have to be protected as well. Just as a person can be refused service at a restaurant, a doctor can refuse service to a patient.

The author loves her rhetoric, I especially liked the poor lady who cried and despaired in the car for 45 minutes and then pulled herself together to drive somewhere else...classic.

yea but the patient has the right to go to another doctor who would perform the procedure.

 

[realitybias]

yea but the patient has the right to go to another doctor who would perform the procedure.

Exactly. A patient also has the right to know all of the options available to that patient, including other specialists and doctors who can perform procedures that doctor cannot.

 

[soeagerun2or]

The FSM has no interpretation of this issue.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Exactly. A patient also has the right to know all of the options available to that patient, including other specialists and doctors who can perform procedures that doctor cannot.

perhaps. I'd be the first one to be there for the patient, hold her hand, talk to her about the trauma she's been through. I'd do all the tests but the minute she wants to terminate a viable living being I'd remove myself from the case. And I'd think most adults know their options; I'd worry about the children and young teens who are raped.

 

[realitybias]

perhaps. I'd be the first one to be there for the patient, hold her hand, talk to her about the trauma she's been through. I'd do all the tests but the minute she wants to terminate a viable living being I'd remove myself from the case. And I'd think most adults know their options; I'd worry about the children and young teens who are raped.

Then that is good to know. I can really care less if a physician is morally opposed to doing his job, but if he's willing to let that opposition get in the way of at the very least giving sound medical advice, it becomes very, very dangerous.

 

[evade]

Panda Bear, your sixth sense for abortion threads never ceases to amaze me.

While I vehemently disagree with some docs' moral standards, I respect that no one should be forced to do something that they consider abhorrent. However, sometimes, their refusal to perform procedures that they consider "wrong" imposes a real and measurable risk to patients. There are many towns in this nation where the only hospital is a Catholic hospital. Redding, CA is one of those towns. What of women who require a C-section, and who wish to have a tubal ligation? Catholic hospitals won't do them, nor will they allow them to be done on their property. These women are already on the operating table. Would it not make sense to do the procedure right then? Why force them to undergo the risk (small though it may be) AND the added expense of a second surgery? That, to me, is irresponsible, and it's not putting your patient's health first.

 

[evade]

perhaps. I'd be the first one to be there for the patient, hold her hand, talk to her about the trauma she's been through. I'd do all the tests but the minute she wants to terminate a viable living being I'd remove myself from the case. And I'd think most adults know their options; I'd worry about the children and young teens who are raped.

Removing yourself from the case is *exactly* what you should do. In a hospital setting, there are always others who can pick up where you left off. This is the responsible way to go about things. We as doctors should all recognize our "hot button" issues (the things that get us really riled up), and be able to bow out when we encounter them.

I think it's also important to recognize that if you are unable to bow out in such a situation, you have picked the wrong field. If you find birth control loathsome, you should NOT be a gynecologist, pediatrician, or family practitioner. It's just that simple. Don't put yourself in a position where you'll be forced to pit your morals against your patient's.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

***edit***

 

[smeagol]

A patient who insists that you violate your moral beliefs for her sake is forcing her beliefs on you and not the other way around. You ain't propagating nothin'.

That's a good point. I never really thought about it that way. The issue does seem to run in both directions.

If a physician puts himself in a situation where he may have to make decisions that are opposed to his morals, then he should be prepared to put his morals aside or step away from that position.

Well, you don't want to ask a virtuous person to put his morals aside. That kind of defeats the purpose of having moral values in the first place. The latter option sounds more suitable.

I think a reconsideration of one's moral principles might be of help as well. That is, if one becomes honestly convinced that what they're about to do is not actually a moral evil after all. I think most would agree that the issue is significantly different qualitatively when rape is under consideration. If an ideal objective observer was watching, would he really be that upset if we referred a rape victim to another doctor?

Removing yourself from the case is *exactly* what you should do. In a hospital setting, there are always others who can pick up where you left off. This is the responsible way to go about things.

I think this notion is right on. One can still maintain his/her moral integrity merely by asking another physician to take his place.

 

[tgp511]

By refusing to give a patient birth control/a rape kit, isn't a doctor violating the "first do no harm" mantra? The delay in taking plan-b significantly increases the woman's chance of pregnancy. It's like someone coming in for an emergency procedure that needs to be done ASAP, and telling them they have to go to the hospital 30 minutes away because you're "morally against" doing the procedure.

Total bull****.

 

[Climberak]

But as the article pointed out, if the patient doesn't know about emergency contraception, they could be withholding treatment without the patient having any knowledge of it. I think it's pretty unethical to not even mention it as an option to someone, so they could at least go see another doctor who would prescribe it. In that case, they're actually making the decision for the patient.

I agree 100%, the problem is that some doctors feel a such a strong tie to their religion that they won't offer any advice. In my opinion, doctors ARE making a decision for the patient. Yes, it is ultimately up to a patient as to what treatment they receive, but the doctor plays a crucial role in that decision.

yea but the patient has the right to go to another doctor who would perform the procedure.

Yes, the patient has every right to go to another doctor, just as the doctor has every right to refuse the patient. Its a vicious cycle

Look, doctors should have a strong sense of morality if they are to practice medicine. Practically every med school has a course on ethics just for this reason. Morals often conflict with one another, which is why discussions like these occur. That's a fact of life. If you feel that morality doesn't belong in medicine, then go into a research position instead.

 

[Felzor]

No, no, that's not how it works. It's not the religious beliefs of the doctor that matter, but the religious beliefs of the patient. If the patient believes it's morally wrong to accept a morning after, then the doctor has no obligation to force it down her.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

I think the tone is a bit too harsh. For one thing, I don't really see how the rape victim can consider herself "judged." The doctor wouldn't prescribe the pill because of his own religious beliefs. He made a call based on his own beliefs, not his patient's circumstances.

There are a lot of subtle (and not-so-subtle) attempts to alienate the doctor "he aloofly said"
-Dr. P.

 

[SeminoleFan3]

"I don't believe in the morality of the morning-after pill or abortion. Nor would I refer my patient to a doctor who would. In my opinion, referring them to a physician who would perform the procedure makes me just as complicit as if I were to perform it myself."

Sorry forgot to quote using the button...


I would really want to hear your views on it if your condom broke during MS-1...

That's all fine and good, but along with those moral beliefs, I also believe in the whole "no sex before marriage" deal, too. So, you're example's not really applicable unless I had gotten married. In my opinion, morality isn't circumstantial. Just because it would happen to me doesn't mean that I'll change what I believe in.

 

[geneticclone]

That's all fine and good, but along with those moral beliefs, I also believe in the whole "no sex before marriage" deal, too. So, you're example's not really applicable unless I had gotten married. In my opinion, morality isn't circumstantial. Just because it would happen to me doesn't mean that I'll change what I believe in.

 

[SeminoleFan3]

By refusing to give a patient birth control/a rape kit, isn't a doctor violating the "first do no harm" mantra? The delay in taking plan-b significantly increases the woman's chance of pregnancy. It's like someone coming in for an emergency procedure that needs to be done ASAP, and telling them they have to go to the hospital 30 minutes away because you're "morally against" doing the procedure.

Total bull****.

I don't think anyone is saying they wouldn't perform a rape kit. However, I would refuse to give birth control. I believe that life starts at conception, so therefore, giving the contraceptive does harm to the child. Works both ways.

There is no way I'm going to violate my moral integrity for a job. Sometimes people forget that it's still just a job. A job with a lot of responsibility, but still just a job. I don't believe in abortion, so I won't be going into OB/GYN. I don't believe in emergency contraceptives, therefore (if I do go into EM), I'll try not to pick up rape cases (not as easy as I just made it sound, but it gets the point across).

 

[Kraazy]

THe key words here are "in my opinion" which is exactly what most people posting seem to think is the problem...

The fact is that this is a morally and ethically diverse society. A balance has to be met and if you block people that have certain beliefs and morals from practicing - our already tight health care system would be in even worse shape.

In truth, I think it would be a huge mistake to force doctors to practice medicine in a way that conflicts with their moral beliefs. However, I feel that there needs to be a lot more clarity as to what those beliefs are. There also needs to be acknowledgement on the doctors' part that patients may have different values than their own. At the very least, they should be willing to give their patients a list of alternate health care providers.

If (for example) a non-abortion provider is concerned about specifically referring patients to abortion providers, then they should simply provide a list of all women's health services available in the area and let the patient sort it out for themselves.

I can hear people yelling that this doesn't provide optimum patient care, but as I said, a compromise of some sort has to be reached.

I agree. I don't think that docs should be forced to do anything that violates their religious beliefs, but they also should not get away with denying their patients information that (1) is relevant if not crucial to their health and well-being, and (2) that they request. Denying care is one thing. but refusing to offer information and referrals compromises the patient's health and imposes one's own beliefs on the patient (which could constitute a violation of their right to live according to their beliefs and values). I feel that this is a perfectly fair compromise. It is one thing for a physician to refue to prescribe EC, but if a rape victim shows up, the least the doc should do is inform the patient that EC is available but that he/she will not prescribe it, and provide the patient with a list of other care providers who may be more willing to prescribe it.

 

[Kraazy]

"I believe that life starts at conception, so therefore, giving the contraceptive does harm to the child. Works both ways. "

Contraceptives prevent conception. There is no child to speak of regardless of when you think life begins.
The position of the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception does not have to do with the definition of life but rather with the Church's conception of sexuality and marriage. These are 2 very distinct issues and one could in fact argue for the morality of EC even if one objects to other forms of contraception and/or abortion.

 

[SeminoleFan3]

"I believe that life starts at conception, so therefore, giving the contraceptive does harm to the child. Works both ways. "

Contraceptives prevent conception. There is no child to speak of regardless of when you think life begins.
The position of the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception does not have to do with the definition of life but rather with the Church's conception of sexuality and marriage. These are 2 very distinct issues and one could in fact argue for the morality of EC even if one objects to other forms of contraception and/or abortion.

She could already be pregnant. Therefore, the massive dose of contraceptive would destroy that pregnancy.