.

[kimmy]

What's with the all-caps?

Well I was raising my voice.

WELL I THINK IT IS RUDE AND MAKES YOU SEEM LIKE A HOLLERING JERK BUT WHATEVER

Well Kimmy because one walks into an emergency, does not necessarily qualify it as an emergency. An emergency to most would indicate an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the well being of the patient, you know a LIFE OR DEATH situation.

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.

Depends on what you mean by prevention, if he aids the woman in no way, there is absolutely no prevention there on his part. If he was actively preventing access to some other doctor that is 100% UNACCEPTABLE, which is not the case, he is just not aiding her for reasons we already discussed. As for failing to inform her it exists is silly, she ALREADY KNOWS it exists and that was the whole purpose of her trip to the emergency room.

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

See this is where you muddy the water Kimmy. He crossed no line whatsoever. By exercising his own beliefs about his own actions is in no way imposing his beliefs on anyone else. Her rights stop at the moment they infringe upon his and vice versa, there is no RIGHT of patient to make a doctor to do whatever they ask.

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.

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?

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.

Alright Kimmy it only took us a couple posts to board the crazy train (woo woo full steam ahead),

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?

here comes the brilliant scenarios and WHAT IFs. See you are missing the fact that she has rights, rights to go another hospital, doctor etc.......See again you miss the point, and this is no small point let me tell you, its one you take for granted day in and day out. OTHER PEOPLE PEOPLES RIGHTS STOP AT THE MOMENT THEY INFRINGE UPON YOURS. GOT IT!!! As much as you would like this doctor to be devoid any individual rights, I am glad he is granted them like the rest of us.

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 do not feel he is standing in anyones way, you just want it to sound like that to make your faultering argument have some substance. I just do not agree with you or anyone walking through that emergency room to stand between him and his beliefs. Your wishes do not trounce his rights THANK GOD!!

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.

So what is your problem Kimmy, you can afford consideration for the doctor with the situation of the Older Man with Cancer, but not the doctor who feels equally strong about the life of a potential unborn child.

So either:

1.) You do not like religion, because I am curious if this doctor had these beliefs just upon his own with no religious ties, would you say his societal morals are wrong too

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.

2.) You are a woman and focus more on the woman's situation, than the rights of the doctor

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.

3.) You are being a hypocrite, allowing one doctor extra consideration for the exact same belief in the value of life

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

[kimmy]

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.

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

[kimmy]

But a lot of patients who end up abusing pain-killers started taking it for medical reasons.

So perhaps Dr Gish was trying to prevent these women from becoming addicted to emergency contraceptives?

My response to that is

And some patients take on the role of knowing more than the doctor. They don't even have the courtesy of pretending to ask for the doctor's expert opinion......typical of Boyer's attitude, stating a demand: "I need morning-after pills!"

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

So anyway, why is the outrage so focused on Gish and these bloody morning-after pill.....when some doctors break their oaths without any qualms that result in deaths and serious injuries?

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]

"Canadian Physicians Group Warns of Dangers of "Morning After Pill""

....

The "morning after pill" (MAP) is a multiple dose of an oral contraceptive, levonorgestrel, which is found in the birth control pill. Manufacturers have reduced the hormone content of oral contraceptives due to serious side effects and health risks. "Now women are being encouraged to use these same pills, in multiple doses, as post-coital 'contraception,'" Dr. Johnston said. "The potential long-term impact of these high hormone doses, especially when used repeatedly, is worrisome and not being adequately addressed."

The makers of the Plan-B MAP highlight on their website that it is "not recommended for routine use as a contraceptive." Yet there is no way to prevent misuse and abuse if readily available without a prescription.

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?

....

"Canadian Physicians Group Warns of Dangers of "Morning After Pill""

The common description of the MAP as emergency contraception fails to accurately describe its possible abortifacient action and is misleading the public," Dr. Johnston said. "The confusion is aggravated by the current attempt to re-define pregnancy as occurring after implantation. It is a basic fact of human embryology that life begins at fertilization. Potential users of MAP must be told that this drug may abort a pregnancy so that they can make an informed decision. Will this message be communicated to them at the counter?"

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.

On May 6, the US Food and Drug Administration rejected a plan to make MAP available over the counter at American pharmacies, citing a concern that it might be unsafe for girls under 16. "Does the Health Minister not have similar concerns about our Canadian adolescents? We urge the Minister to put the health of Canadian women and girls before political ideology and commercial interests and reject any attempt to distribute this potentially harmful abortifacient in Canada without a doctor's prescription."

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04052005.html

Tara Harnish, age 20... Lori Boyer, age 35...

"The most common side-effects of the morning-after pill are headache, nausea, painful breasts and irregular vaginal bleeding.

One very important side-effect of the morning-after pill, or 'post-coital contraception', is pregnancy. This is more likely if you waited more than 24 hours after unprotected sex before seeking medical advice, or if sex took place more than once.

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

[betsy]

But a lot of patients who end up abusing pain-killers started taking it for medical reasons.

So perhaps Dr Gish was trying to prevent these women from becoming addicted to emergency contraceptives?

My response to that is

And some patients take on the role of knowing more than the doctor. They don't even have the courtesy of pretending to ask for the doctor's expert opinion......typical of Boyer's attitude, stating a demand: "I need morning-after pills!"

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.

I guess you do realize your reasons do not hold at all.

So anyway, why is the outrage so focused on Gish and these bloody morning-after pill.....when some doctors break their oaths without any qualms that result in deaths and serious injuries?

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

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.

If religion was not the cause of Gish refusal, would it have this kind of response, I wonder.

As I've said before, from Boyer's recollection of the event, the way Gish handled the situation was quite provocative. But then, you and I were not there to witness that incident in his office. Your argument regarding Boyer's case rests solely on Boyer's claims....which could either be true or an outright lie....or innacurate.

[betsy]

"Canadian Physicians Group Warns of Dangers of "Morning After Pill""

....

The "morning after pill" (MAP) is a multiple dose of an oral contraceptive, levonorgestrel, which is found in the birth control pill. Manufacturers have reduced the hormone content of oral contraceptives due to serious side effects and health risks. "Now women are being encouraged to use these same pills, in multiple doses, as post-coital 'contraception,'" Dr. Johnston said. "The potential long-term impact of these high hormone doses, especially when used repeatedly, is worrisome and not being adequately addressed."

The makers of the Plan-B MAP highlight on their website that it is "not recommended for routine use as a contraceptive." Yet there is no way to prevent misuse and abuse if readily available without a prescription.

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?

Kimmy, the reason I posted those articles was because of this misleading comment you've made:

kimmy @ Jul 7 2007, 10:33 AM)

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.

It is not as harmless as what you want us to believe. Here:

MAP can function in one of three ways: by preventing ovulation; by preventing fertilization; or if fertilization has already occurred, it may prevent the newly created human being from implanting in the uterus, thus aborting the unborn child. "

If the morning-after pill doesn't work and a woman becomes pregnant unexpectedly, there appears to be no problems to the unborn baby - although it is not possible to give an absolute guarantee of this.

[betsy]

If he believes that providing a morning-after pill is doing somebody any harm, then it doesn't make any sense for him to call in a colleague to do the dirty deed instead. That's just like me hiring a killer to kill someone just so I don't get my hands "dirtied".

That would really be breaking the oath, won't it? Knowing and believing that I am killing or harming someone by calling a colleague...and yet doing it anyway!

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?

Well I find it surprising that you don't seem to understand the concept of belief and conscience.

Well I guess now it's more understandable that the Conscience Law was put in place to protect doctors' religious belief since some people don't have any clue at all how moral dilemmas and conscience can be so important for some.

Gish cannot stop Boyer from going to another doctor and from getting those pills from someone else.

He cannot stop Boyer from talking to others and asking for the referral. And Gish cannot stop the nurse, or whoever, from giving the referral to Boyer.

Gish has nothing to do with Boyer's acquirement of the referral....and the pill.

He didn't want to have anything to do with it.

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

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:

If he believes that providing a morning-after pill is doing somebody any harm, then it doesn't make any sense for him to call in a colleague to do the dirty deed instead. That's just like me hiring a killer to kill someone just so I don't get my hands "dirtied".

That would really be breaking the oath, won't it? Knowing and believing that I am killing or harming someone by calling a colleague...and yet doing it anyway!

I hate to think this is your sly play with words, Kimmy. Either that or you truly have comprehension problems.

Which is it?

[cybercoma]

The MAP might have the severe consequence of preventing a rape victim from bearing her attacker's child.

What do you suggest otherwise? That the girl be made to bear this child? Or do you suppose the doctor should hand his patient over to someone who's willing to write a prescription for the drug?

Really, what is the point you're trying to make? Because kimmy keeps repeating herself that she feels the doctor failed his ethical responsibilities by not referring his patients to another doctor.

Do you suggest that the doctor should not even do that? What is your point, betsy?

[betsy]

The MAP might have the severe consequence of preventing a rape victim from bearing her attacker's child.

What do you suggest otherwise? That the girl be made to bear this child? Or do you suppose the doctor should hand his patient over to someone who's willing to write a prescription for the drug?

Really, what is the point you're trying to make? Because kimmy keeps repeating herself that she feels the doctor failed his ethical responsibilities by not referring his patients to another doctor.

Do you suggest that the doctor should not even do that? What is your point, betsy?

This is just another circling argument Cyber. Go back and read. All these things you're asking had already been explained.

Kimmy now, is just trying to nit-pick on any little thing she can nit-pick on....and now it seems, playing on words and statements (and I hope not deliberately)!

[betsy]

In deference to Kimmy however, it is perhaps the fault of the hospital administrator to have named such a man to be the sole doctor on duty in the emergency ward. Couldn't the administrator have found someone more flexible?

Oh I do agree with you. I think it is the hospital's fault! And the administrators knew...and more or less, admitted to that mistake.

[August1991]

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.

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.

But it remains that one person would call a procedure "treatment" and another would call it a "request" (supposedly of less critical importance).

Kimmy, you have repeated often the idea of an "oath" as if that somehow obliges a doctor to intervene (or somehow changes doctors into super-human beings). Is this really the case?

I view these cases much like the bar-owner in Red Deer who refused to serve two lesbians. Where is the obligation for a medical doctor to provide a particular service? Many medical doctors are capable of carrying out an abortion, for example, but they refuse to do so.

The Charter of Rights does not oblige individuals to do anything. It constrains the government from being discriminatory. If this were a State hospital systematically refusing to offer "morning after pills" even though they are legal, then it would be a different matter. The State is a monopoly and there is no other choice. Hence the logic of the Charter.

As to the point about the MD not offering a referral (or even providing information about the existence of a morning after pill), this strikes me as just an extension of the same idea of refusing a service. At heart, you feel that the MD should have done something and the MD didn't do it. So we're back to the same issue.

There is possibly another view of this question. If a ship on the ocean is in distress, then surrounding ships have an obligation to provide assistance under strict terms. For example, a contract signed under duress is not enforceable.

This is why I felt that if blame there is, it lies with the hospital administration. The administration should have foreseen the possibility that this particular MD would be alone on the ER ward and would not be capable of offering all services.

I come back to the point that is the women's lack of choice that is really the problem here. Well, we all face limited choices and often, we face no choice at all. One reason the world is a better place now than it was even 50 years ago is because we have more choices.

You have more choices than your parents, and your children will likely more choices than you. These two women didn't have a choice but I don't think that it's right to fault the MD for their lack of choice. That's akin to a sailor on a sinking yacht in the mid-Atlantic blaming his distance from shipping lanes for his lack of choices in deciding what to do.

----

Incidentally, there is another aspect to these cases which I find intriguing. It is referred to as the principal-agent problem. I don't think this problem really applies in these cases though. This is not a case where incentives are such that a principal can take advantage of the lack of information of an agent.

[kimmy]

But a lot of patients who end up abusing pain-killers started taking it for medical reasons.

So perhaps Dr Gish was trying to prevent these women from becoming addicted to emergency contraceptives?

My response to that is

And some patients take on the role of knowing more than the doctor. They don't even have the courtesy of pretending to ask for the doctor's expert opinion......typical of Boyer's attitude, stating a demand: "I need morning-after pills!"

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?

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

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.

If religion was not the cause of Gish refusal, would it have this kind of response, I wonder.

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

[kimmy]

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

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:

If he believes that providing a morning-after pill is doing somebody any harm, then it doesn't make any sense for him to call in a colleague to do the dirty deed instead. That's just like me hiring a killer to kill someone just so I don't get my hands "dirtied".

That would really be breaking the oath, won't it? Knowing and believing that I am killing or harming someone by calling a colleague...and yet doing it anyway!

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

[kimmy]

Kimmy, you have repeated often the idea of an "oath" as if that somehow obliges a doctor to intervene (or somehow changes doctors into super-human beings). Is this really the case?

I view these cases much like the bar-owner in Red Deer who refused to serve two lesbians. Where is the obligation for a medical doctor to provide a particular service? Many medical doctors are capable of carrying out an abortion, for example, but they refuse to do so.

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

[Sully]

The thing you seem to fail to realise is that the religious morals or rules themselves came from existing primarily secular perceptions of what is right or wrong, or in some cases even just what is productive and acceptable in a human society.

Ok that being said, please provide me with an example of the particular socities, cultures or famous historical figures that developed such notions, I would appreciate that.

Also, I would like to believe that there is something innate in all humans that makes us act good independent of everything else.

Contrary to your statements about modern morality coming from the period when the Church was dominant in European (or as you put it, "world") politics, most of our concepts of morality (such as prohibitions against murder, theft, etc) come from long before that period. In fact, codes of law (incorporating prohibitions or punishments against what we today would consider immoral acts) have existed for thousands of years before the development of the modern monotheist religions.

I should have been clearer about stating the "world". But I what I really meant to say is that all cultures in this world developed their own religions and their morals which for the most part, were based on those religions. As for morals existing before monotheistic religions, you are right, all you have to do is open up a history book to see that. Of the world's first major montheistic religion, Judaism has been around since 1400 BC.

Considered by most historians to be the worlds oldest civilizations, the Egyptians, Sumerians and Indus Valley were polytheistic and henotheistic. I do not see how you can draw the conclusion that ancient world was somehow more secular than today. Look at the temples, pyramids, cultures that flourished based on their religions. Hinduism the oldest of the world's religion (roots back to 1600 BC), with their adherents practicing dharma. Look at Egyptian gods representing good and evil, look at the way those people viewed droughts. After experiencing a drought they definitely began to live their lives in such a way to get back into the gods good graces. Again please provide me with examples of where these codes developed completely independent of religion.

Fringe religious beliefs are indeed in question here. In my opinion, the belief that a "morning after pill" should not be prescribed since that would "murder" the pre-embryonic "human" is right out there on the fringe.

Wow if thats a fringe belief I am afraid to find what else you consider to be fringe, scary just scary....Ever watch the movie Apocalypto (Great Movie), in that movie you will find some fringe religious beliefs, we probably both can agree to.

My point is simple. If a person's morals are based only on religion, then there is something wrong. Leaving behind religious beliefs, a member of modern society should still have other secular notions that would impel them not to commit acts of murder, theft, etc. If they lack these secular notions, and do not commit the above acts solely based on their beliefs in God, then, like I said, there is something wrong.

Well actually there is nothing wrong with believing your morals come from religion. Lets just say if that doctor said he could not do it because he believed life starts at the point of conception, with no religious basis, is that OK with you?? He believes that we all started at that point in order to be here writing on our computers, is that a fringe belief to you??

If someone bases all their morals on secular morals, again that ok with you?

Do you believe that because people have these religious morals, that if they believed there was no god, that they would begin to rape, kill and steal? Would that be akin to believing that if there were no laws secular people would begin to rape, kill and steal??

See what you have to realize is that for most part that these values are the same and in each instance of going against those morals, you will either to have answer to your fellow man, or god or both for your actions. Whether you receive these morals from society or a religious upbringing they have been given to you and they generally re-enforce one another because they are not so different.

Having religious beliefs that are also in line with the secular principles of our society is fine. However, like I said, those religious beliefs should not be the sole basis of those morals in a member of our current society. However, for the majority of modern institutionalized religions, including most forms of Christianity, there are also beliefs that come in direct conflict with those of our current society, with the knowledge provided to us by scientific investigation, or with principles/values of the western world. Devout followers of these religions will therefore also be in conflict with those beliefs as well.

So as long as people believe what you believe you are tolerant of them, I am sorry but I am far more tolerant of others it appears. And please do not provide some crazy example, were not talking of exceptions to the rule. I do not want to move to a society where one train of thought is all we know, I do not want to live in a world where we cannot have different views and beliefs. I respect your opinion and its fine with me, I do not need you to share my beliefs to make my world a better place, I am just glad we can discuss differences. Of course you must realize that all religions do not speak for all people, some people do not move with the times and some people expect religions to drop their beliefs because its not "in".

A person that picks and chooses only the beliefs of "not murdering, not lying, not stealing, and not cheating" (and other values that complement our society) out of a religion, and ignores all the rest that doesn't fit in with the accepted notions of our modern society is not a religious person, they are an atheist that doesn't want to admit it to themselves. I have no problem with such people. It is only those that accept all the precepts of their religion, without question, that are frightening.

Ya but remember somebody can look right back at you and see you as a follower of a something like a religion, just that you adhere "Secularism" and that you follow it so blindly and that is frightening.

[Sully]

WELL I THINK IT IS RUDE AND MAKES YOU SEEM LIKE A HOLLERING JERK BUT WHATEVER

Haha well actually I capitalized it to make sure you did not miss the main point of my post, I guess it did not work. But in any case, excellent comeback !!

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.

In regards to this finger issue of course he should get immediate attention if available. This actually did happen to my uncle who cut off of his fingers with the fanbelt on one of his pieces of machinery. He picked them up and carried them to the emergency room and was fixed in about 8 hours, of course they were placed on ice, while he waited. Of course if someone came in with a worse emergency he would have to wait, all things are relative depending on the injury.

I am not saying she should not get immediate attention, its just she needs to get it from another doctor thats all. I agree if I was her I would want it done immediately, I am not faulting her for that.

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

Two patients and he still kept to his moral convictions, he is not compromising them for you, me or anyone, very different from most people. I do not believe he has to tell her or aid her in anyway in regards to this manner. By not aiding her he is not preventing. If he says no pill exists or causes cancer and makes false statements to deliberately confuse the girl, that is UNACCEPTABLE and he should be punished.

A patient has a right to expect her doctor to provide adequate information to make informed choices about her treatment.

I think your real point here is that you want to have a doctor believe in exactly what you want and do what you want, otherwise its unacceptable to you.

"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."

You are right these examples have finally made me see the light !!!

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?

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?

Breaking one moral to keep another does not make sense to me, do you conduct yourself this way?

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?

Ya but you are now trying to bring up potential scenarios, lets focus on what happened, what needs to change and why it happened.

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.

Well I would do everything I could to get these guys fired, but I do not believe they are wrong for following through with their beliefs, but lets face it show me example of where a JW would not perform transfusion, or Jewish/Muslim exercising those particular beliefs you postulated? It may come up one day, but then again doctors like that would more than likely do their own private services and using select clients. Just because they have their beliefs does not mean they try to make others see their way.

There will be religious doctors for and against abortion

There will be non religious doctors for and against abortion

The world is complex and its the best we can do, we will deal with things when they come. As I have stated always I am for the abortion and giving the pill, but I do understand Gish's beliefs and why he will not aid her.

[betsy]

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.

Of course you won't have any idea at all about everything we're discussing - including how come I'm talking about doctors prescribing painkillers/steroids - when all it seems you do is read and answer what's exactly right infront of you with total disregard for the whole flow of the discussion.

You're simply choosing a statement here and there and taking it out of context, or muddling and trying to confuse the discussion, or detracting and deflecting by simply saying "I don't know why..."

That is resorting to cheap tricks. That's being dishonest.

And you know what, it only shows that you know you've got no grounds at all with your arguments.

But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that you truly are confused. So my advice to you before you post any reply is to go back and read if you don't understand why something is suddenly included in the discussion. It just did not crop up for no reason. And take your time reading....and try to understand what you read!

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?

Like this one. It seems you've got a lot of re-reading to do. So, chop-chop!

If religion was not the cause of Gish refusal, would it have this kind of response, I wonder.

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.

WRONG! The fact that he has HIS RIGHT to his religious belief has been his SOLID leg to stand on!

If it wasn't for this RIGHT, he wouldn't have people like me supporting him on the internet!

If he did not have this RIGHT, he'd have been disciplined or fired from his job! Because unlike what others may want to believe, a right is a right is a right!

Stupidity or incompetence to make logical decisions or stubborness or whatever, don't give a special PRIVILEGE to stomp on someone's RIGHT just because they don't agree with it!

And that is why the Conscience Clause was placed, to ensure that rights are accomodated and respected!

And may I add Kimmy: he has as much right to his freedom of religion as you have to your freedom of speech. He can practice his religion according to his beliefs and you can blather on according to your beliefs.

[kimmy]

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.

Of course you won't have any idea at all about everything we're discussing - including how come I'm talking about doctors prescribing painkillers/steroids - when all it seems you do is read and answer what's exactly right infront of you with total disregard for the whole flow of the discussion.

Ok, so you're making some kind of effort to show that doctors who might think they're helping patients actually turn out to be hurting patients? Is that what you're trying to say?

Yes, it's probably a very important issue when one is talking about chronic abuse of prescription drugs. Still not sure of the relevance to this case, however. Why don't you take a go at expressing it more clearly?

You're simply choosing a statement here and there and taking it out of context, or muddling and trying to confuse the discussion, or detracting and deflecting by simply saying "I don't know why..."

That is resorting to cheap tricks. That's being dishonest.

And you know what, it only shows that you know you've got no grounds at all with your arguments.

I work 3 jobs to support myself. I simply don't have the time to respond to the sheer volume of material that's being thrown at me by someone who seems to have 24 hours a day to spend at this. Particularly now that two more people apparently want to argue with me as well.

So I cut out fluff, and I don't bother responding to stuff that I've responded to pages and pages ago, or stuff that doesn't seem to have a point at all.

Tell you what, if you feel I've neglected something that was really important, bring it to my attention and I'll have a look at it.

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?

Like this one. It seems you've got a lot of re-reading to do. So, chop-chop!

Shut up with your "chop chop." It's rather rude.

In this case, I think that your "go back and re-read" is just a dodge. Your problem with Ms Boyer's "attitude" is not at all clear from what you've written. So why don't you summarize it in nice clear terms that even confused little kimmy can understand?

And while you're accusing people of ignoring issues that aren't convenient for you, I notice you didn't address the issue of how Dr Gish can in good conscience allow a patient to see the rape crisis nurses and counsellors that the hospital will be providing, when he knows full well that they're going to tell the patients about emergency contraception and how to get it, and might even be providing the pills.

If religion was not the cause of Gish refusal, would it have this kind of response, I wonder.

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.

WRONG! The fact that he has HIS RIGHT to his religious belief has been his SOLID leg to stand on!

If it wasn't for this RIGHT, he wouldn't have people like me supporting him on the internet!

If he did not have this RIGHT, he'd have been disciplined or fired from his job! Because unlike what others may want to believe, a right is a right is a right!

And a patient who goes into an emergency room has a right to expect the care she needs.

I agree that the hospital should have had some plan in place to prevent a situation like this from even happening. But it didn't. And there should have been something more that could.

And may I add Kimmy: he has as much right to his freedom of religion as you have to your freedom of speech. He can practice his religion according to his beliefs and you can blather on according to your beliefs.

Don't you think that it's a little strange that of the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of doctors in the US who are also religious and have the exact same rights as Dr Gish, none of the other ones have gotten themselves in trouble over this issue?

Do you think a patient who is on the way to an emergency room should be saying to herself "god, I hope I don't get a religious doctor, god I hope I don't get a religious doctor"?

I would think that most Christians would probably be somewhat hurt idea that a patient might dread having to deal with a doctor who shares their beliefs.

Yet, if being treated by a religious doctor means that she is immersed into this kind of conflict between her needs and his beliefs, then shouldn't she be be hoping she *doesn't* see a religious doctor?

-k

[betsy]

.....................................................

zzzzzzzzzzz

[Moxie]

This post was edited as mod INSTRUCTED.

Bravo Kimmy, not only have you won this debate but you did so without losing your lunch. I can't be bothered to argue or debate with narrow minded zealots who think a doctor can deny a WOMAN or WOMEN medical care visa vie neglecting to give them their medical options after rape citing his religious ethos. More male hog wash to subjubate women and keep us knocked up and in our place. One has to be extremely narrow mind or devotly brainwashed with religion or socialist dogma to think what transpired in defendable. What transpired is indefensible, not to the socialist followers thou they defend the undefensable all the time. Of course the tax payers could instill five doctors at all times based on the socialist dogma of "Let them go to another doctor" and raped victims can roam in pain and terror the hallowed halls of the ER seeking to find a doctor that will treat them without religious baggage. When did we lose our right to be treated as "Equals" to our male counter parts. Give me one example of Dr. Narrowminded refusing to treat a male. Nope not going to happen.

Fight the good fight Kimmy, it's a waste of time because Betsy and Scully will never see that failure to treat these women using religion as an excuse is just that an "Excuse". I hope they sue, because they shall win. Religion belongs behind closed doors in one's personal adobe. Leave your dogma there when you enter the REAL world.

[Bonam]

I don't think you can really frame this in terms of "subjugating women" or the conflict between male and female roles in society in general, Moxie. It's not really an issue of sexism but of religious zealotry, which can be harmful to our civilization as a whole, including both its male and female members.

[August1991]

Bravo Kimmy, not only have you won this debate but you did so without losing your lunch. I can't be bothered to argue or debate with narrow minded zealots who think a doctor can deny a WOMAN or WOMEN medical care visa vie neglecting to give them their medical options after rape citing his religious ethos.

So, what do you propose to do, Moxie? Put a gun to the doctor's head and force him to prescribe a pill?

In a civilized society, if you meet someone whose opinions you don't like, you cross the street and go elsewhere. You don't force them to mouth your own opinion.

[cybercoma]

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.

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.

-k

I'm going to make a suggestion, and you can think I'm crazy or a zealot or as bad as the religious for saying this.

I don't think he knew what he was doing was wrong. I think it is because of his religious beliefs that a man with good intentions did a terrible thing. This doctor probably thought he was doing the morally right thing in the situation by not preventing a human life from forming.

Steven Weinberg, nobel prize winning physicist, said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

The Dr. Gish issue exemplifies Weinberg's quote perfectly, IMHO. I don't think he used that excuse for the special privilege, which undoubtedly exists, but instead he used it with sincerity.

This is what has always been and always will be my "issue" with religion.

In the middle east, when a group of men from a family beat their daughter/sister/neice/cousin to death because she's with a man from another religion, it may seem crazy, but I truly don't think they know what they're doing is wrong. I think they feel justified by God to take such actions. I think it is religion that makes them feel these things are necessary, moral and just.

Our culture would be a lot more disgusted by these types of actions; however, if we were living in a Christian theocracy the laws may turn a blind eye to homosexuals being murdered, since there are times in the Bible where God punishes them with death. It's tough to say.

Anyway, you're suggesting he used religion; I'm suggesting religion used him.

[cybercoma]

In a civilized society, if you meet someone whose opinions you don't like, you cross the street and go elsewhere. You don't force them to mouth your own opinion.

How would you feel, if while you were traveling you suffered an injury, went to an ER and the attending doctor said he doesn't treat Canadians or french people?

Worse than that, what if the doctor didn't tell you about an option you had and you had to go through other surgeries as a result? Only to find out later he didn't treat you because of some religious belief he held, that was no religious belief of your own?

I think the doctor was completely unethical and should've referred her to another doctor if he didn't want to offer the treatment himself. Are you really suggesting that, after being traumatized by being raped (can you imagine being raped yourself?), she should've shopped around for a doctor?

[betsy]

I think the doctor was completely unethical and should've referred her to another doctor if he didn't want to offer the treatment himself.

What if the doctor didn't know anybody who offers this kind of service?

The most likely thing to happen would've been for the doctor to advice the raped woman to ask her rape counsellor.

The rape cousellor would be more likely to know of doctors who prescribe morning-after pills....after all, I would imagine that to be part of his/her job as a counsellor!

And like I said, we were not there to hear every details of their discussion. We are only relying on Boyer's testimony. Purely one-sided! And I must say, questionable as to its accuracy....considering the lapse of time that this incident took place (2-3 years ago), plus with her state of mind (induced by trauma) at the time it happened....and yes, not to mention her motive.

How sure are we that Gish did not advice her to ask her rape counsellor, explaining that her rape counsellor would be more likely to know of someone?

In the end, it was indeed the rape counsellor who gave her the referral!

Edited July 10, 2007 by betsy