- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 36
Hi all,
Pathologist here...thought I'd drop over from my usual forums to ask a practical question. As you probably know, Florida just signed into law a physician "religious liberty" bill. One of the feared consequences of this bill would be physicians (or other healthcare professionals) refusing to treat patients based upon a "deeply held religious belief" of any type (you can apply that to whatever scenario you want, but the main concern would be LGBT patients not being afforded care by some).
My question is the practicality of this...setting aside the principle issues (of which there are many), I wonder: are there any physicians who would invoke "religious liberty" in refusal to treat a given patient? Clearly we're not talking about the GYNs who fall on one side or the other of an abortion debate (no one is forcing any physician to prescribe mifepristone against their will). I'm just trying to understand what physicians would actually use this law or bill, and in what circumstances? It doesn't seem to me like it actually addresses any problems...physicians were, as best I can tell, able to practice medicine with enough autonomy to where if they were uncomfortable giving a drug or performing a procedure (for whatever reason, be it legitimate or illegitimate) they could pass off/refer to a colleague who would do it.
Not trying to start a war in the responses...genuinely trying to understand if there is a problem that this actually addresses.
Pathologist here...thought I'd drop over from my usual forums to ask a practical question. As you probably know, Florida just signed into law a physician "religious liberty" bill. One of the feared consequences of this bill would be physicians (or other healthcare professionals) refusing to treat patients based upon a "deeply held religious belief" of any type (you can apply that to whatever scenario you want, but the main concern would be LGBT patients not being afforded care by some).
My question is the practicality of this...setting aside the principle issues (of which there are many), I wonder: are there any physicians who would invoke "religious liberty" in refusal to treat a given patient? Clearly we're not talking about the GYNs who fall on one side or the other of an abortion debate (no one is forcing any physician to prescribe mifepristone against their will). I'm just trying to understand what physicians would actually use this law or bill, and in what circumstances? It doesn't seem to me like it actually addresses any problems...physicians were, as best I can tell, able to practice medicine with enough autonomy to where if they were uncomfortable giving a drug or performing a procedure (for whatever reason, be it legitimate or illegitimate) they could pass off/refer to a colleague who would do it.
Not trying to start a war in the responses...genuinely trying to understand if there is a problem that this actually addresses.
Last edited:
