kimmy

Pizza. How dare they bring that stuff and alter our pure White culture!!!! What next? Falafals and belly dancing? <shudder> I will take this opportunity to again voice my opinion that Canadians *love* multiculturalism as long as it's confined to funny hats, tasty food, wacky dancing, and that sort of thing. Superficial stuff. Canadians are far less enthusiastic about multiculturalism if one understands it to include less superficial aspects of culture. I think that very few Canadians are accepting of, for instance, Sharia law, or the kind of contempt for women seen in some cultures, or the marital practices of the Bountiful Mormons, or that kind of stuff. Canadians enthusiasm for multiculturalism dims considerably once you're past the funny hats and pizza stage. For the record, there have been a number of incidents discussed on this board that demonstrated as much. One that springs immediately to mind is comments from members of a Muslim rape gang in Australia, who targetted white women and said utterly horrific things about them. There was also a thread discussing an interview with some young Muslim men in Sweden who had appalling attitudes toward white women. I don't have time right now, but I'm sure that others on the board might remember them. Or try the forum search button. This is somewhat where I step off the parade route too. To me, it means the outstanding tradition of freedoms and democracy and human decency that we've inherited and expanded upon. For others, I suspect that the word "Christian" figures heavily into it. -k

The oath which has been mentioned numerous times in this thread is, essentially, an acknowledgment by doctors that they have much greater responsibilities and are held to a much higher standard of conduct than Red Deer bar owners, or the much-maligned Somali taxi drivers who keep getting dragged into this. -k

Give me a link showing that I said that highlighted part! I said Dr Gish would actually be breaking his oath if he gave the referral to Boyer....knowing fully well that the doctor he's referring would actually commit what Gish believes could kill or be harmful! This is what I said: And? What are these specially trained nurses and the rape counsellors from SARCC, if not colleagues that are going to harm or kill fetuses? They're going to inform rape victims about how then can kill their fetuses, and maybe even (depending on how the hospital implements the new policy) provide the pill to do it. So, again, if Dr Gish believes that this is murder, how can he in good conscience allow a patient to speak to one of these nurses or counsellors? -k

So perhaps Dr Gish was trying to prevent these women from becoming addicted to emergency contraceptives? My response to that is Are you suggesting that Boyer was unjustified in asking for a treatment option she knew existed? Or are you claiming that Dr Gish's decision to refuse to provide access to this treatment was based on his expert medical opinion? Either way, the only response that deserves is I agree with August that you are "playing around" with our statements. You know perfectly well how the flow of discussion went....and why I stated those comments. No, Betsy, I don't. I have no idea what you're trying to say with this. I don't know why you want to talk about patients who get hooked on painkillers when we're talking about a one-time emergency use of a contraceptive. And I certainly don't understand what you're getting at with your comment about Lori Boyer's attitude. What did she do that you find offensive? You mean doctors' RELIGIOUS belief. A doctor doesn't have to be a practioner of any religion to have any belief. For doctors of Smith and Benoit, obviously they believe there's nothing wrong in what they did to their patients. They probably believe that keeping their patients content is good for their health. I doubt it. I think it's far more likely that they knew what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway because they just wanted the money. The fact that he has religion as his excuse has been his only leg to stand on. If it wasn't for religion he wouldn't have people supporting him on the internet. And he'd have been disciplined or fired from his job and it would have barely made a ripple in the news. Because unlike religion, stupidity or incompetence don't have special protections afforded to them. People get a lot more slack if they say "I did it because of my religious beliefs" than other excuses like "I just didn't know what to do" or "it seemed like a good idea at the time" or "I had a 4:30 tee-time and I just wanted to get her out of my office." So no, Betsy, if it had been some other reason than religion that he did what he did, it would not have created this kind of reaction. If it had been some reason other than religion, the doctor would have been turfed, and the women would have been given cash settlements by the hospital in return for not suing, because we tolerate things in the name of religion that we wouldn't tolerate for any other reason. -k

So it's not recommended for routine use as a contraceptive. What has that got to do with providing it to rape victims in an emergency situation? .... Even "Canadian Physicians For Life" will only claim that there's the *possibility* that it may have abortifacient effects. Dr Gish was certainly on hand to inform these patients of that and could have done so prior to referring them to another doctor. Tara Harnish, age 20... Lori Boyer, age 35... So even though you recognize how time-critical this treatment is, you still applaud the doctor for his efforts to delay the women from receiving it? Well done. -k

As usual, you're able to take the hysteria of people like Leafless and MikeDavid00 and distill it into reasonably stated and reasonable concerns. And I don't disagree with any of this. I certainly worry that a lot of the people we allow into Canada have no intention of embracing our values at all. And I worry what will happen when dimwits and knuckleheads exist in Canada in sufficient numbers to make their values felt in policy. And I don't really know whether there's a solution to what I see as a potential problem. I don't really see Quebec culture as a threat to anything except Quebec's continued prosperity. -k

So perhaps Dr Gish was trying to prevent these women from becoming addicted to emergency contraceptives? My response to that is Are you suggesting that Boyer was unjustified in asking for a treatment option she knew existed? Or are you claiming that Dr Gish's decision to refuse to provide access to this treatment was based on his expert medical opinion? Either way, the only response that deserves is There's lots of doctors who have screwed up in lots of different ways, but we are discussing "doctors beliefs can hinder patient care." -k

Kimmy, I thinnk you are conveniently playing with the meaning of words and in so doing, you are giving an ad hoc basis to your argument. What is treatment to one is a request to another. Not at all. The examples Betsy provided (the doctors of Anna Nicole Smith and Chris Benoit) illustrate how caring for a patient is different from granting a patient's every request. -k

Well I was raising my voice. WELL I THINK IT IS RUDE AND MAKES YOU SEEM LIKE A HOLLERING JERK BUT WHATEVER Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time of intercourse. It was most certainly a time-critical issue. It has to be life or death (sorry, that's LIFE OR DEATH) to be an emergency? Really? So, for instance, a guy who injures himself with a power-tool and could lose the use of his fingers if he doesn't get surgery immediately, that's not an emergency because he's not going to die? I think most people would recognize that a rape victim is an emergency because it is time-critical for two reasons: -obtain forensic evidence required to convict her attacker. -prevention of pregnancy. You're aware that there were two patients, right? One of them, Tara Harnish, saw Dr Gish after being raped, and didn't even learn that emergency contraception existed until her sister suggested it the next day. Tara went back to Dr Gish to ask for the treatment and he refused, so she drove an hour to another city to a see a doctor who would. He didn't just refused to provide the drug, or to refer her to someone who would provide it for her, he didn't even tell her that the option existed HE DIDN'T EVEN TELL HER THAT THE OPTION EXISTED As Betsy's posts indicate, the longer you wait before taking this drug, the less likely it is to work. The information in Betsy's post indicates that the drug becomes unreliable if it is taken more than 24 hours after intercourse. Dr Gish cost her that much time just by neglecting to mention it to her. DR GISH COST HER THAT MUCH TIME JUST BY NEGLECTING TO MENTION IT TO HER A patient has a right to expect her doctor to provide adequate information to make informed choices about her treatment. When Tara Harnish went to this doctor, he did not provide that information. She did not find out about emergency contraception until the next day when her sister mentioned it. By failing to inform his patient about a time-critical treatment option, he left a high probability that she would not find out about the treatment until it was too late. Can you think of any other situation where you'd consider it acceptable for a doctor to eliminate treatment options by neglecting to inform the patient about them in a timely manner? "Last time you were in here, I could have reattached those, if I had bothered to mentioned it. But it's too late now. You can still get a nifty prosthetic, though." "Last time you were in here, I could have arranged for an outpatient surgery to have that removed. But it's too late now. You can still get chemotherapy, though." "Last time you were in here, I could have given you a pill that would have prevented you from being pregnant with your rapist's baby. But it's too late now. You can still get a surgical abortion if you want, though." Neglecting to inform her of the option nearly eliminated the option. Lying is wrong and should not be condoned, actively giving misleading information is wrong. I would not agree to any of that either. Oh, come on. What's one little lie if it saves a life? Neglecting to even inform the patient that the option existed is a lie of omission. Relax, Sully, we're just exploring the room. I think it's reasonable to ask, if Dr Gish is convinced that it's murder to provide this contraceptive pill, then how far is he justified in going to prevent that murder? If need medical care, I want the information to which I'm entitled. Period. I don't want a doctor to neglect to inform me that a medicine exists because it was tested on bunnies and she opposes testing medicine on bunnies. I don't want a doctor to neglect to inform me that a medicine exists because it was developed from fetal stem-cells. I don't think people actually want a doctor to have the right to exercise his religious beliefs. I think they only want doctors to have the right to exercise religious beliefs that they're comfortable with. It's easy to come up with examples where you don't want your doctor to exercise his religious beliefs YOU DON'T WANT YOUR DOCTOR TO EXERCISE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS Like JW doctor who won't perform an emergency blood transfusion. How about a Jewish heart surgeon who could save a patient with an emergency transplant of a pig heart, but refuses to do so because he believes it's an abomination. How about a Muslim doctor who refuses to treat a dying woman because it is forbidden for him to touch a woman to whom he isn't married? Are these acceptible exercises of religious freedom if each tick off the clock reduces the chance of success? If the time it takes to find another doctor who is willing to do what is required places the patient's care in jeopardy? Still happy with the religious freedom being exercised? And I know what you're going to say: "But that's different! She wasn't going to die, she was just going to get pregnant." No big deal, right? Not to you, anyway. I do not like the fact that he chose not to inform this patient that emergency contraception could prevent her from becoming pregnant from rape. As a citizen at large, I am focused on the fact that a patient depends on his doctor to provide him with accurate and complete information so that he can make an informed decision about his treatment. I think it is appalling that so many people apparently support this doctor's decision to conceal information from his patient. I support his right to not perform this action himself. I don't accept that he had any right to delay his patient from receiving this treatment from someone else, when each moment of delay decreases the chance of the treatment working. -k

How did he fail his ethical duty? If he did fail it, why is he not disciplined by the hospital or by the board? Especially when there are now two complainants and is highly publicized? Ascension Health says a patient needs adequate information to make informed decisions about her treatment. You yourself have agreed that it is unacceptable that Tara Harnish was not given the information she needed. As her doctor, responsibility for her treatment fell on Gish's shoulders. Ergo he failed his ethical duty. That's about as QED as it gets. I have not seen any evidence that he was disciplined by the hospital or the state medical board. Are you asking me to speculate as to why that might be? And so, he did! Yes he did. He proved that many people don't think it's acceptable for a physician to hide information from his patient. And he provoked a controversy that ensured that his own hospital will provide counselling about emergency contraception. He also set in motion a state law that if passed ensure that every hospital in Pennsylvania will provide information and access to emergency contraception. And he brought national attention to emergency contraception. If Dr Gish believes that emergency contraception is murder, then I wonder how he feels that so many more women will have information about it and access to it as a direct result of his actions? Interesting. I wonder how he's sleeping these days... Well it depends on your definition of "care". Where in any of that does it says a doctor is required to give a referral for such things as morning-after pills? The definition of care is not at the doctor's moral discretion. There is a fundamental principle that patients be given adequate information to make informed choices about their own care. A doctor explains the options and the risks. "We can surgically remove most of the growth and try to attack the rest with chemotherapy. The chemotherapy is very difficult, and you'll spend months feeling tired and nauseous. But there is a very good chance that you can recover from this. Or, there is a new drug, but it doesn't have a high success rate. It is not as difficult as the chemotherapy, but the chance of success is significantly lower. It's also very expensive and it's not covered by health insurance yet. The only other option is to not treat it. But if we don't treat it, it will be fatal in six months to a year." But the patient ultimately chooses what's best for her. "I think the surgery and chemotherapy is the best choice. I want to try and fight this." The doctor doesn't make that decision for the patient. Nor does he hide options from her if they don't suit his views. So now, it's everybody's fault except Gish! If he had done his job, then yes, it would be somebody's fault other than Gish. It's such a simple concept that I'm puzzled that you seem unable to grasp it. I find that hard to believe, reading from some of the posts on this thread. The root issue, the one that got Dr Gish in the news, is not that he's religious, but the way in which he treated a young rape victim when she needed his help. If Tara's mom had gone to the newspaper and her only complaint was the doctor's religion, do you think it would have become a news story? Out of the thousands upon thousands of doctors in the United States who have religious beliefs, we're talking about this one specific doctor. Why? Because of what he did. Likewise the Muslim doctor mentioned earlier on who let the Jewish man die. Is it newsworthy that the doctor is Muslim? There's a lot of other Muslim doctors who aren't in the news... maybe the fact that he neglected a Jewish patient is what made his religious views noteworthy. Because he's a doctor, not a taxi driver. He swore an oath that includes a pledge to call in a colleague whenever he can't care for a patient himself. Baloney! The gist of his oath was: Saving lives. Do no harm. You posted the whole thing earlier in this thread, but now you want us to forget all that and just focus on the part that suits your purpose. The oath has a number of "gists" addressing a wide variety of a doctor's ethical duties, including things like a reminder to respect the privacy of the patient, a reminder that he is caring for a patient and not just treating a medical condition, and --particularly relevant to this case-- the pledge to call in a colleague if he is unable to care for a patient himself. So how can Gish possibly allow the next rape victim he sees to talk to one of these specially trained nurses that Good Samaritan now has on hand, when he knows full well that that nurse is going to tell that woman about the emergency contraception pill? Earlier you were arguing that the hospital failed Dr Gish by failing to have a rape counsellor on hand to assist him with these patients. But now you're arguing that Dr Gish would have been breaking his oath if he actually let his patient talk to one of these counsellors. So which is it? -k

Why eliminate "white" to replace it with Anglo-Saxon? C'mon, let's call a spade a spade. Well, "white" lacks precision, as has been pointed out a number of times already. Quebec's "pur laine" are surely a pasty and pale lot, and the original poster is clearly as annoyed at them as he is at the rest. However, I'm a little concerned by the description "Anglo Saxon". I'm of Norman and Slavic descent... am I still welcome here? -k

One of the problems with this situation was that this was an emergency room. People don't shop around or ask which doctors might be on duty when they're choosing an emergency room. They go where they can get treated quickest, because emergency situations tend to be, you know, emergencies. Someone who arrives at a hospital emergency room has an expectation that they'll be cared for. Dr Gish said that he refused to prescribe emergency contraception because he was concerned that it might act as an abortifacient. He certainly has the legal right to take that position, and I have no objection to him exercising it. And this is where we disagree. The doctor's conscience might excuse him from having to perform this duty himself, but when he attempts to prevent a patient from obtaining access to another doctor in time to administer the drug, or when he attempts to prevent a patient from obtaining the treatment by failing to inform her that it exists, then he has crossed the line. The line he crossed was the line between exercising his religious beliefs, and attempting to impose his beliefs on his patient. If you take the view that the doctor's actions are justified by his belief that he is saving a life, then how far can he go? Could he lie to a patient? "You might have heard about this emergency contraceptive called Plan B. Some people think it's an option for rape victims, but they are lying. This drug causes cancer. If you use it, you will die. Trust me." Is that allowed? What's one little lie if it saves a life? Could he physically restrain the patient to prevent her from obtaining access to the drug? Could he physically lock her in the exam room for 72 hours so that it's too late for her to get the drug? It's justified if it keeps her from going to some other doctor who would give her the drug? What about physically restraining her for 9 months, just to make sure she doesn't have an abortion? I mean, if he believes she might go have an abortion, he has to do whatever he can to save that baby, right? If you feel that Dr Gish is justified in trying to stand between his patients and their treatment by the fact of his beliefs, then wouldn't he also be justified in doing these things as well? What's with the all-caps? -k

Indeed! The courage of Tara Harnish and her family in speaking out about her experience has done a great service to women in Pennsylvania, and beyond. -k

Would you say the same about a doctor who refused to provide, at your request, a lethal injection?Are you saying that a doctor should at all times do what the patient requests? Well, notice that I did use the word "treatment" rather than "requests". I have tried to be consistent about using words like "care" and "treatment" in this thread when I talk about what I think a doctor's duties are. I can only think of two situations where I (or probably most people) would request a lethal injection. Either I'm experiencing unbearable suffering and have no chance of recovery, or I've gone nuts. If I've gone nuts, then a doctor who considers my treatment to be paramount would probably be reaching for his directory to arrange some time for me in a nice, safe psych ward where my mental health can be assessed. If I was in such unbearable pain and my prognosis was so hopeless that a lethal injection seemed like an appealing option, I would think that a doctor who truly considered my treatment to be paramount would find some way to ease my suffering. It would undoubtedly be an extremely difficult choice for the doctor. The question over whether a doctor's treatment of a patient might include providing a merciful end to their suffering is not cut and dried, as many as demonstrated by the many "death with dignity", "living will", euthanasia, pull-the-plug, Terri Schiavo, Sue Rodriguez type dramas that we have seen in the news over the years. Providing a patient with doses of drugs that threaten their well-being for non-medical reasons doesn't fall under any reasonable definition of treatment. -k

So there is no law in Pennsylvania! Then he is definitely not obliged at all, is he? This makes your argument moot! As I've said a number of times already, I've never claimed that Gish broke the law. I've claimed all along that Gish failed his ethical duty to these patients. It's not moot, it's proven. As I've stated before, it seems Gish is anxious to prove a point! So? Where in any of that does it relieve a doctor of the responsibility to arrange for someone else to provide care for patients that he can not care for himself? The difference between contraception and abortion is one that has significant moral implications. Many people sympathize with the doctor for not wanting to administer a pill that kills a fetus. But many of those people might be a lot less sympathetic if they were aware that the pill he refused to provide is actually designed to prevent conception and has never actually been demonstrated to kill a fetus. And we agreed on this case. Yeah, then he happens to refer her to a doctor he hardly knows and that doctor botched it up....then I bet the argument will be "Gish should not have referred her to a doctor he hardly knows! She placed her trust in Gish's referral of that doctor!" That's ridiculous. If Gish referred her to another doctor and that guy botched her treatment, who would blame Gish?! People would definitely be mad at the doctor that screwed up. People would probably also be mad at the hospital for having an incompetent doctor on staff. People might be mad at the state medical board for failing to assess this incompetent doctor's skills accurately. It wouldn't be Gish's fault for trusting that the hospital and state medical board had ensured that the doctor he was referring his patients to was qualified. People aren't mad at Gish because he's religious. People are mad at him because he failed these patients. Because he's a doctor, not a taxi driver. He swore an oath that includes a pledge to call in a colleague whenever he can't care for a patient himself. -k

If my own doctor treated me as Dr Gish treated these women, he'd be my "ex doctor" and my "ex friend," regardless of how long he'd been my doctor or how many laughs and jokes we'd shared. A doctor who places his views ahead of my treatment IS of less value to me than one who considers my treatment to be paramount. And a friend who would be such a traitor to me is of no value at all. -k

But he would have been lying. There was no law requiring him to inform her about emergency contraception. (That's the whole reason that the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act is currently being considered in the Pennsylvania legislature.) He didn't break any law by failing to mention emergency contraception. All he did was fail to fulfill his duty to his patient. That's all I've ever accused him of. And the undisputed facts say exactly that. As an aside, he'd have also been lying if he had said that emergency contraception is the morning after pill. The drug at the center of this controversy is not, in fact, the "morning after pill," RU486. It is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel It prevents ovulation and prevents conception. There is some controversy over whether it can prevent an embryo from implanting. I'm judging him on the fact that he hid information about emergency contraception from Tara Harnish, and on the fact that when Lori Boyer asked him to refer her to a different doctor, he refused. No further evidence is needed to demonstrate the dismal care he provided for these two patients. Whether he might have eventually provided Boyer information of his own volition is just a side-track. Maybe if she'd been an undercover detective doing a sting operation, she'd have "screwed up" by asking for emergency contraception, but as a patient trying to get medical care, she did as she was entitled. We're arguing about whether he failed his patients. You keep returning to Boyer's case to try to find some excuse for this negligent, miserable doctor. The thread title claims "Doctor's beliefs can hinder patient care." And the way Dr Gish treated Tara Harnish when she was in his care provides ample proof. -k

Dr Gish already said that he won't prescribe emergency contraception and that he "has a problem with it." So melodramatic details aside, he's already confirmed her story. Those are two separate cases. That he neglected to inform the 20 year-old does not necessarily mean he intended to withold information from Boyer. We do not know if he would've provided that information had she not mentioned it herself. You're not paying very close attention when you read these articles, are you. Ms Boyer claims that she asked him for emergency contraception *after* he said that he was finished his treatment. She claims it, and since we know he did the same thing a year later in his treatment of the 20 year old patient, that certainly supports her claim. (this is "establishing a pattern of behavior". You may have seen it on "Matlock" a few times.) Why does it even matter what his intent was in regard to Ms Boyer when we've already caught him red-handed failing to provide the other patient with adequate care? A little detail that makes no difference to the argument! Whether they were raped or not does not change the conditions of the Conscience Clause. Nowhere did it say in the Conscience Clause that only a raped patient have the right to medical information. So don't be so petty picking on the little details that changes nothing! Just wondering why you were telling me "but we were talking about the other woman, the rape victim!" when both of the women we were talking about were rape victims. It tends to add to the impression that you didn't actually read the articles. Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case. Excellent. Case closed. In that particular case. Just want it to be clear. So is the 20 year old less important? Why are you so intent on vigorously defending his treatment of the 35 year old and apparently have no concern over his treatment of the 20 year old? This is called clutching at straws! It's clutching at straws to point out that Dr Gish swore an oath taking personal responsibility for the treatment of his patient? Only on Planet Betsy. Nice attempt at misdirection, but we were talking about Gish's duty to provide his patient with adequate information. Ascension Health says, Tara Harnish needs to be provided with adequate information regarding her treatment. Dr Gish says, no she doesn't. Ascension Health says, yes she does. If Dr Gish was uncomfortable with discussing it with her himself, he should have called another doctor or a nurse. A doctor is responsible for his patient's care. You've already agreed that the 20 year old wasn't given adequate care when she was at the hospital. Martin Gish was responsible for her care. Therefore, Dr Gish failed to live up to his responsibilities. It really is that cut and dried. You persist in trying to excuse him by blaming the hospital, but ultimately the doctor is the person directly responsible for his patient. And we all know this and understand this. If a patient comes to an emergency room with a problem that the doctor can't treat, what does he do? He takes her to a doctor who does know how to treat the problem. If a patient comes to a doctor and his hospital doesn't have the right equipment to treat her condition, what does he do? He arranges for her to be transfered to a hospital that has the right equipment. If a patient comes to a doctor and he thinks that a specialist's opinion is needed, what does he do? He arranges for a specialist to consult on the case. A doctor doesn't hang his patient out to dry if his hospital isn't adequately prepared for his patient. A doctor does everything in his power to make sure that his patient gets the care they need, and if he can provide it himself, he makes sure that they get to a doctor who can provide it. Which is why I find it so pathetic that you're trying to make excuses for Dr Gish. All he had to do was call someone who could talk to these women, and he didn't even bother to do that. He left them to fend for themselves. Then Boyer's description of the way he handled her exam is rather central to the piece. -k

Gish treated the 35 year old woman prior to the incident with the 20 year old. The 35 year old woman did not come forward with her own story until the family of the 20 year old. The incident with the 20 year old happened in summer 2006. The incident with the 35 year old woman happened in 2004 or 2005: -from the first article posted in this thread. Would he have provided Ms Boyer with information about emergency contraception if she hadn't requested it of her own? Well, a year later he had the opportunity to provide a patient in the same situation with information about emergency contraception, and let her walk out the door without it. So? What does this prove? That he had failed to give medical information to the 20-year old. But we're not arguing about that! We're arguing about his intention on this other one - the raped woman! They were BOTH rape victims! The 20 year old woman who Gish failed to provide information was a rape victim. Dear Jeebus, how did you get this far without picking up THAT little detail?? Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case. Excellent. Case closed. Glad we're finally agreed. Your previous posts also conveniently dodge the fact that the Pennsylvania Conscience Clause only relieves a doctor from having to perform an abortion, and doesn't relieve him of his other responsibilities to his patient. The hospital is a building. The hospital didn't take the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges him to find someone else who can provide the care his patient needs if he can't provide it himself. Remember his oath? "Taxi drivers don't take oaths, doctors take oaths," that thing? A doctor is responsible for the care of each patient he treats. No conscience clause supersedes that fundamental principle of medical ethics. If a patient needs a tonsillectomy, a doctor doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "not my department" and send her out the door. A doctor makes sure that she gets a tonsillectomy. Because, as you agreed above, he failed to meet his responsibilities to his patient. He shrugged his shoulders and said "not my department" and sent her out the door. -k

First of all, how do you know what really transpired...and what was exactly said in his office that day? Were you there? How do you know that Gish had really no intention of giving the information of an alternative? Just because the woman was the one who first brought it up doesn't necessarily conclude that he was not going to mention it, especially when there was already a previous incident. That is not a proof! That is an assumption! You're assuming that he has no intention at all of divulging that information! I love how you conveniently forgot the 20 year old woman, the one who Dr Gish treated and sent home, and found out about the "morning after pill" the next day when she was talking to her sister. We know that Dr Gish had no intention of giving the information because she left his office without it. http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566 An apology is usually an admission of guilt. Sure, but lots of people who are guilty never apologize. The undisputed facts of the case prove he failed to meet his responsibility to his patient. While the hospital could have prevented this all by having an adequate policy in place, that doesn't alter the fact that as a doctor, Dr Gish has ethical an ethical responsibility to each patient he treats. There's no passing the buck. The doctor has a duty to his patient. Whether the hospital should have done things differently (and obviously they should have) doesn't relieve Gish of that duty. But he passed the buck. The Hippocratic Oath says that if he needs help to treat a patient, he will not fail to get help. He failed to get help. If there was a lawsuit in the works, issuing an apology would probably be seen as an admission of liability. It makes them less likely to apologize, not more likely. The first sentence is right. But the following two sentences do not follow. Since when is a doctor not responsible for treating his patient? And the Good Samaritan Hospital's owners had decided to do something to bring it up to ethical standard. What do you expect the hospital's owners to say? Of course there will be a lot of PR talk! So you now feel that the whole discussion about the Brownfield vs Freeman Hospital ethics case was just a bunch of PR BS? You doubt their sincerity? -k

No, I am not included in that "we". One thing I'm sure though...that's what you say you know. What makes you conclude that he screwed up? Did he issue an apology? Was he penalized already? Suspended? Fired? Found guilty of screw up and fined? Given a sentence? That might be an opinion, but it is not a fact unless you can prove it. We know that his patient left the hospital without counselling or the information she needed to make informed medical decisions. That's an undisputed fact. That's all the proof we need to know that the doctor screwed up. Did he apologize? Who cares? Doesn't change the fact that he failed to give his patient the care she needed. He might feel justified, but he screwed up. Did the hospital fine him, reprimand him, or otherwise discipline him? We don't know. Doesn't matter, and doesn't change the fact that he let his patient leave the hospital without the care she needed. That's his responsbility. He was her doctor. The fact that the hospital implemented a new policy for dealing with rape victims is an admission that the care this patient received was unacceptible. That's his responsbility. He was her doctor. Good Samaritan Hospital's owners, Ascension Health, say that the care that this patient received was not up to their ethical standard, right in that excellent web page that *you* kindly contributed to this discussion. If Ascension Health says she didn't receive adequate care, who are you to disagree? Because if your doctor hid important information from you, you'd just laugh it off? Smells like a rat? Please elaborate on this theory. I'm interested to see where you're going with this. -k

boo hoo. Be glad she didn't invest her nest egg in Nortel stocks instead. Playing the stock market carries a risk. I don't have much sympathy for people who lose money in the stock market. I certainly don't have much sympathy for someone whose stocks have been the target of a lucrative buy-out. Someone bought Garth Turner's mom's BCE shares for more than they're worth? Boo hoo! If he wants to complain about this, maybe he should complain about the management of BCE, whose poor business decisions turned the company into a prime target for a take-over. Like I said earlier, if Garth's mom had had the misfortune to buy Nortel shares instead of BCE, she'd be left with pennies on the dollar. So quit whining. Hey Garth, tell her to go buy some GICs if she wants a safe reliable return with no risk. -k

And the Pennsylvania conscience clause, yet again, only relieves him from performing an abortion. It doesn't say anywhere that he's entitled to hide information from his patients. Which is something that everybody, including Ascension Health, his employer's employer, agrees is unethical. We don't know that the hospital didn't reprimand him. They might well have done so at the same time that they requested he no longer speak to the media. Or perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they secretly agree with him and are only making this wonderful new policy with the trained nurses and rape counsellors in an effort to appease state legislators who are about to run over their asses with a steam-roller. (My suspicion is that they weren't sorry when it happened, but became very sorry after a wave of angry media people and legislators caught wind of this. That's just a guess. We don't know.) We don't actually know what went on behind closed doors. What we DO know is what is obvious from the facts, which is that he screwed up. -k

Poor Farfour! I'm profoundly upset by this. Justice! Justice for Farfour! The brothers of pigs and apes will bleed their own blood for killing the affable rodent! I'm so mad, I think I might go set fire to some kosher food. They must pay for this animated outrage. -k

It doesn't.You keep saying "conscience clause! conscience clause!" The conscience clause gave him the right not to perform an abortion (and by extension, administer a morning after pill.) The conscience clause in Pennsylvania applies ONLY to performing an abortion. It does not excuse him from any other duties a doctor has to a patient. It seems to me that *you* are the one who is engaged in wishful thinking, each time you say "oh, if only the hospital had provided this service or that service, then poor Dr Gish wouldn't have been put in this position!" Well, the hospital didn't. Tough luck for Dr Gish, but he's still got ethical responsibilities. Even your ethics discussion from Ascension Health agrees that the patient needs to be informed of her options. The patient left the hospital without being given the information she needed to make decisions about her own care. That's Gish's fault. He was her doctor. Ultimately he's responsible for the care she receives. It's not a question of whether he broke the law, it's a question of whether he lived up to his ethical responsibilities as a doctor. And you don't have to be a lawyer to recognize that he failed to live up to the responsibilities a doctor has to his patient. -k