.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

No, doctors should not be able to refuse treatment based on religious beliefs any more than, for example, a teacher could refuse to teach evolution because of religious beliefs.

[kimmy]

That article made me sick.

If doctors are allowed to behave in this manner, then perhaps there is a need for patient advocates to be on-site at hospitals. I thought that the Hippocratic oath requires the doctor to be the patient's advocate, but apparently that's not true anymore.

-k

[gc1765]

Doctors need to provide medical support for their patients, period. If that conflicts with someones' religious beliefs, they can choose another profession.

[bush_cheney2004]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

Medical providers all over the US (and perhaps Canada too?) are denying morning after pills to women who've been raped, refusing birth control and even more mind-boggling holding back on abortions when a mother's life is in danger.

Yea...really mind boggling. Third trimester abortions have been refused by physicians (except for mother's health) in Quebec for years...sending patients to the USA instead.

Wiki says that RU-486 is currently illegal in Canada.

[cybercoma]

I currently live in Fredericton, NB and a nursing student was saying there is about 3 doctors in this city that will refuse birth control because of their beliefs. When we were talking there were two other women in the room who agreed and actually named the doctors. So, this is not strictly a US problem. This is an embarrassing subject for some women, particularly young girls and these doctors are making the situation worse with their faith-based beliefs. Something seriously needs to be done about this. Awareness needs to be raised around the country on this subject.

[bush_cheney2004]

....This is an embarrassing subject for some women, particularly young girls and these doctors are making the situation worse with their faith-based beliefs. Something seriously needs to be done about this. Awareness needs to be raised around the country on this subject.

Why is it embarrassing for some women...because of their belief system? Physicians are people too...should they be required to perform genital mutilations if requested?

[Guest American Woman]

Physicians are people too...should they be required to perform genital mutilations if requested?

Are genital mutilations a legal right of women?

[bush_cheney2004]

Are genital mutilations a legal right of women?

FGM is considered to be a human rights violation by many, but I presented the question to challenge the presumptions and belief systems vis-a-vis far more invasive "abortions". We can add MGM, body piercings, tatoos, and cosmetic surgery to the list of protected privacy rights / culture.

What else shall we force physicians to do against their belief systems? Oh yea, the ultimate right...physician assisted suicide (a la Dr. [and ex-con] Kevorkian).

[Guest American Woman]

Physician assisted suicide isn't a legal right, which is why Kevorkian is an ex-con. It's not relevant to compare a legal right to something that is not a legal right.

[bush_cheney2004]

Physician assisted suicide isn't a legal right, which is why Kevorkian is an ex-con. It's not relevant to compare a legal right to something that is not a legal right.

See Oregon's Death with Dignity Act...upheld by the USSC in 2006.

In any event, which of these things shall we force physicians to engage in despite objection?

[Guest American Woman]

The act that you refer to does not guarentee people in Oregon the "right" to assissted suicide; very specific criteria must be met, and it's up to the physician to determine if the criteria has been met. The doctor doesn't literally "assist" in the suicide, however; he/she just writes the prescription. So should doctors have to have to give a patient who meets the criteria a prescription? The act says no, that it's voluntary on the physician's part, but in a public hospital, I don't think religous beliefs should enter into it. So yes, in the very specific cases covered by the act, doctors should be required to provide the prescription.

We can add MGM, body piercings, tatoos, and cosmetic surgery to the list of protected privacy rights / culture. [...] which of these things shall we force physicians to engage in despite objection?

As already stated, gential mutilation is not a right, so that answers your question in regards to MGM. Body piercings and tatoos are not medical procedures, and cosmetic surgery is a chosen profession, so doctors who have not chosen to go into cosmetic surgery should not be required to perform it any more than a podiatrist should be required to perform open heart surgery.

[bush_cheney2004]

As already stated, gential mutilation is not a right, so that answers your question in regards to MGM. Body piercings and tatoos are not medical procedures, and cosmetic surgery is a chosen profession, so doctors who have not chosen to go into cosmetic surgery should not be required to perform it any more than a podiatrist should be required to perform open heart surgery.

Plastic surgeons do not always perform the requested procedures for personal and ethical reasons.

You have side-stepped the fundamental issue for all these examples.....patients cannot insist that a physician (or even tatoo artist) perform such procedures. In general, our rights stop at the doorstep of somebody else's rights.

Please reconcile such a position with no third trimester abortions in Quebec (except to save a life). They are sent to the USA instead, despite the fact that abortion-on-demand is the law in Canada (healthcare is not a right).

[kimmy]

The point you seem to have missed, Dick, is the difference between medical care and elective procedures.

I think it's profoundly stupid to compare tattoos, breast implants, or "female circumcision" to emergency contraception to a woman who's just been raped.

Also, notice in the first page of the story that one of the women states that not only did he refuse to provide contraception himself, he also refused to refer her to a doctor who would. He was not just trying to avoid terminating a pregnancy himself, but also to prevent her from terminating her pregnancy.

He was not just attempting to exercise his right to his religious beliefs, he was attempting to violate her right to access medical care to which she was entitled.

FGM is considered to be a human rights violation by many, but I presented the question to challenge the presumptions and belief systems vis-a-vis far more invasive "abortions".

I also think it's profoundly stupid to claim that abortions, or particularly the "morning after pill", are more invasive than female circumcision. Easily one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on this forum.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I also think it's profoundly stupid to claim that abortions, or particularly the "morning after pill", are more invasive than female circumcision. Easily one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on this forum.

And I think you are a poor reader...go back and find where I ever stated that a "morning after pill" was invasive.

Medical procedures, elective or not, are not a right. Seems to work for physicians eschewing third-tri abortions in Quebec.

[betsy]

For the sake of discussion, here are the two versions of the oath.

Original, translated from Greek.

“ I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

***************************

Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

[betsy]

deleted. irrelevant response.

[betsy]

In rape cases, don't they "clean" you out in the hospital (to prevent any STD or possible pregnancy) after you've been treated and evidence of rape is medically documented? If you've been cleaned out, why would you still need a pill?

Anybody knows the normal procedures in hospitals regarding rape?

[betsy]

I currently live in Fredericton, NB and a nursing student was saying there is about 3 doctors in this city that will refuse birth control because of their beliefs. When we were talking there were two other women in the room who agreed and actually named the doctors. So, this is not strictly a US problem. This is an embarrassing subject for some women, particularly young girls and these doctors are making the situation worse with their faith-based beliefs. Something seriously needs to be done about this. Awareness needs to be raised around the country on this subject.

If we're now talking about regular pregnancy (not this particular rape case), nowhere in the modern version of Hippocratic Oath does it say that the doctor has to comply to the demand of the patient.

We're not talking about a matter of life and death here.

[betsy]

Doctors need to provide medical support for their patients, period. If that conflicts with someones' religious beliefs, they can choose another profession.

Yes doctors need to provide medical support....but it is up to the doctors' judgment how to go about it. Some patient cannot just go to a doctor and demand, "I'm in pain. Prescribe me cocaine!"

And if the doctors' judgement does not agree with the patient's...well, there's always the option of going to another doctor!

[betsy]

No, doctors should not be able to refuse treatment based on religious beliefs any more than, for example, a teacher could refuse to teach evolution because of religious beliefs.

What if the teacher was teaching evolution but explained to his students that it is a flawed 150 year old theory that no longer is credible? He'd be right but would still run into problems with the authorities.

What if the doctor described the procedure to his patient in all its graphic glory and advised her not to get the abortion for her own medical and mental security? He'd be right based on modern medical research but would still run into problems with the medical authorities.

The teacher and the doctor are each giving their best advice and care to their 'charges', but that's not the concern of the authorities.

The problem is NOT that the authorities are penalizing professions' behaviour on religious grounds but that they are doing it on the basis of furthering their own left-wing radical secular anti-Christian agenda.

Evolution is promoted by the authorities not because it is a viable theory - even Darwin would agree it's not -but because the authorities fear the replacement for the theory of evolution would be the theory of Intelligent Design (scientists, the gods of secular authorities, are turning to it in droves!), the authorities are shaking in their collective secular boots.

Abortion is promoted by the authorities, not because it's a safe and healthy procedure for the patient - even the most pro-abortion doctor would agree that it's not - but because the authorities see anti-abortion laws as the removal of women's rights rather than the protection of the life of a child.

The authorities know that the truth won't carry the day. They also know that in an increasingly amoral society, blaming religion (they say religion but they mean Christianity) will.

[Guest American Woman]

As already stated, gential mutilation is not a right, so that answers your question in regards to MGM. Body piercings and tatoos are not medical procedures, and cosmetic surgery is a chosen profession, so doctors who have not chosen to go into cosmetic surgery should not be required to perform it any more than a podiatrist should be required to perform open heart surgery.

Plastic surgeons do not always perform the requested procedures for personal and ethical reasons.

You have side-stepped the fundamental issue for all these examples.....patients cannot insist that a physician (or even tatoo artist) perform such procedures. In general, our rights stop at the doorstep of somebody else's rights.

Please reconcile such a position with no third trimester abortions in Quebec (except to save a life). They are sent to the USA instead, despite the fact that abortion-on-demand is the law in Canada (healthcare is not a right).

I've never heard of refusal of plastic surgery for personal and/or ethical reasons being a problem in any way. I've heard of surgeons refusing to do repeated surgeries, but that's because of health/mental health issues regarding the patient.

As I said earlier, teachers must teach the cirrumulum even if it goes against their religious beliefs. Mail carriers must deliver a love letter between two gay lovers even if the gay relationship goes against their religious beliefs. A medic/police officer must give life-saving techniques to a suspected criminal/murderer if injury occurs during an arrest regardless of personal beliefs. Poll workers can't refuse a woman's right to vote just because their personal beliefs are women shouldn't have been given the right. A landlord can't refuse to rent to a gay couple because of his religious beliefs. An employer can't refuse to hire someone based on religious beliefs. And the list could go on.

As for reconciling the position of no third trimester abortions in Quebec: just because it's happening doesn't mean it's right. That's the point of this thread, to discuss whether or not people should have the right to refuse to do part of their job because of personal beliefs. What a world this would be if we could all refuse certain aspects of our job because of personal beliefs.

Now about sending women to the United States for third term abortions: It should be noted that the vast majority of states also have laws regarding third term abortions, so it's not a simple matter of "sending them to the United States" as you claim. And I'm wondering why, if this is a problem unique to Quebec, they don't send them to other parts of Canada. That's not the issue here, though; the issue is whether doctors should be able to refuse to do part of their job because of personal beliefs, and I stand by my statement that they should not be able to do that any more than anyone else is able to refuse service due to their personal/moral/religious beliefs.

[kimmy]

In rape cases, don't they "clean" you out in the hospital (to prevent any STD or possible pregnancy) after you've been treated and evidence of rape is medically documented? If you've been cleaned out, why would you still need a pill?

Most girls learn in health class that washing the "icky stuff" out after intercourse is not an effective or reliable means of preventing pregnancy. (did you honestly not know that?!)

Doctors need to provide medical support for their patients, period. If that conflicts with someones' religious beliefs, they can choose another profession.

Yes doctors need to provide medical support....but it is up to the doctors' judgment how to go about it. Some patient cannot just go to a doctor and demand, "I'm in pain. Prescribe me cocaine!"

The rape victims in the article were not asking for cocaine, they were asking for emergency contraception.

-k

[kimmy]

And I think you are a poor reader...go back and find where I ever stated that a "morning after pill" was invasive.

Very well, I was mistaken regarding the morning after pill. However, your statement:

FGM is considered to be a human rights violation by many, but I presented the question to challenge the presumptions and belief systems vis-a-vis far more invasive "abortions".

certainly appears to posit that abortion is more invasive than genital mutilation. Which is still an immensely stupid and ignorant thing to say. Was that your intent?

Medical procedures, elective or not, are not a right. Seems to work for physicians eschewing third-tri abortions in Quebec.

Since we're big on hypothetical scenarios in this thread, like patients demanding cocaine for pain relief or patients demanding female circumcisions, let me propose one of my own.

Suppose someone has been in a car crash. He's suffered massive blood loss, and he needs a blood transfusion. Luckily for him, the hospital has enough blood of his type in the cooler! Unluckily for him, the doctor working the emergency room that night is a Jehovah's Witness. He won't administer a transfusion, for moral reasons. Another doctor is called in, but it could take him hours to arrive, and our car-crash victim could expire before he arrives.

Has our car-crash victim been treated fairly? Is this an acceptible sequence of events in your opinion? Does this sound "ok", or does it sound like a problem?

-k

[betsy]

In rape cases, don't they "clean" you out in the hospital (to prevent any STD or possible pregnancy) after you've been treated and evidence of rape is medically documented? If you've been cleaned out, why would you still need a pill?

Most girls learn in health class that washing the "icky stuff" out after intercourse is not an effective or reliable means of preventing pregnancy. (did you honestly not know that?!)

I am asking about a procedure that's done in the hospital for rape cases ....not a simple "washing" or is it "douche-ing" at home, right after intercourse.

Doctors need to provide medical support for their patients, period. If that conflicts with someones' religious beliefs, they can choose another profession.

Yes doctors need to provide medical support....but it is up to the doctors' judgment how to go about it. Some patient cannot just go to a doctor and demand, "I'm in pain. Prescribe me cocaine!"

The rape victims in the article were not asking for cocaine, they were asking for emergency contraception.

-k

I know that. But obviously gc was not talking about just that one particular case! Before you correct someone else, better get your facts straight. Read what they've said.

It seems to me a lot of girls get pregnant these days without getting raped.

Anyway, while it is the obligation of the doctor to give competent medical advice to his patient, that advice certainly wouldn't be the same advice you'd give. Let's hope not. Or we'll be back to the knitting needles era!