Jump to content

.


Recommended Posts

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.

He is not wrong. You're wrong. That pretty well puts an end to the discussion.

Now how can you say he's wrong when that's the point of the discussion? As I've said before, declaring it doesn't make it so.

Of course since it is his religious/moral belief, he believes he's only doing the right thing. Furthermore, the law had said he is right to refuse what goes against his belief...that in fact, the law had decided to make it his right.

Out of curiousity, what would you say if instead of citing religion as his reason for not prescribing morning-after pills, he said: "Sorry, but I believe the dangers of its side-effects outweighs its benefit. I don't know anyone off-hand to refer you to, but I would suggest that you speak with your rape counsellor. Your rape counsellor would be most likely to have that information available."

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What if the doctor didn't know anybody who offers this kind of service?
If Dr. Gish didn't know anybody, the very least he could've done was suggest the treatment, inform the patient that his religious convictions do not allow for him to prescribe that medication and that she should seek the advice of the rape counselor. Dr. Gish did not inform the patient of her options, one had found out from her sister and the other was flat-out refused and left on her own to find the appropriate doctor.

Regardless, this is not a reasonable suggestion. When you see a doctor in an emergency room and he doesn't know how to perform plastic surgery, it's his responsibility to find you a plastic surgeon.

The rest of your post is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether or not doctor's beliefs can hinder patient care. The MAP is extremely time sensitive and this irresponsible doctor cost these women time.

There is no evidence to suggest the rape counselor was even part of the hospital staff at the time these incidents happened. I thought kimmy and you already hashed that out and you agreed?

I want to know something from you:

If a doctor in an ER refuses a rape victim (or incest victim) the MAP, due to religious convictions, and she then becomes pregnant -- after finding a doctor to prescribe it to her, too late -- do you agree with her having an abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZEALOT - IMPLIES EXTREME OR EXCESSIVE DEVOTION TO A CAUSE AND VEHEMENT ACTIVITY IN ITS SUPPORT (ZEALOTS OF REFORM); FANATIC SUGGESTS THE UNREASONABLE OVERZEALOUSNESS OF ONE WHO GOES TO ANY LENGTH TO MAINTAIN OR CARRY OUT HIS OR HER BELIEFS

ZEALOUS - CHARACTERIZED BY, OR SHOWING ZEAL; ARDENTLY DEVOTED TO A PURPOSE; FERVENT; ENTHUSIASTIC.

*******

Religious people aren't the only ones who can be zealots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Gish did not inform the patient of her options, one had found out from her sister and the other was flat-out refused and left on her own to find the appropriate doctor.

Corrections. One had found out from her sister...and the other (Boyer) herself brought it up herself by demanding that she needed it, thereby giving the indication that she was already informed.

Regardless, this is not a reasonable suggestion. When you see a doctor in an emergency room and he doesn't know how to perform plastic surgery, it's his responsibility to find you a plastic surgeon.

Yes, those are medical specialists. I don't know the procedures with prescriptions....but I doubt a doctor who do not wish to prescribe marijuana will have a list of names of doctors who are only to willing to prescribe it. I would bet that the doctor will opt to play it safe and find an excuse.

There is no evidence to suggest the rape counselor was even part of the hospital staff at the time these incidents happened. I thought kimmy and you already hashed that out and you agreed?

The rape counsellor need not be an employee at the time. I would be willing to bet that Gish knew that Boyer had a rape counsellor to advice her.

All Gish has to say is: Well, ask your rape counsellor. She is more likely to know of someone.

If a doctor in an ER refuses a rape victim (or incest victim) the MAP, due to religious convictions, and she then becomes pregnant -- after finding a doctor to prescribe it to her, too late -- do you agree with her having an abortion?

What does my agreeing to an abortion have to do with it? I'm not the one who's going to perform the abortion! I'm not her guardian. I don't have any say on the matter whether I agree or not. She'll do what she wants whether I agree with it or not.

If she wants to, I'm sure she'll find a doctor who'll agree to give her one.

Since abortion is now legal, she has the right to choose whether she'll have the abortion or not.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not wrong. You're wrong. That pretty well puts an end to the discussion.
I think showing gross insensitivity to a rape victim and not presenting her with all her options would be almost unanimously reviled, except for those, that for no other reason than religious faith, have had their morality skewed.
Now how can you say he's wrong when that's the point of the discussion?
Would you be ok with a doctor treating you the way he treated his patients if someone had just raped you?
Of course since it is his religious/moral belief, he believes he's only doing the right thing. Furthermore, the law had said he is right to refuse what goes against his belief...that in fact, the law had decided to make it his right.
Laws don't give or take away rights, but that's a whole different argument.

kimmy has clearly showed how the doctor didn't have to prescribe the MAP himself; however, it was his responsibility to refer he to a doctor that would. The law only makes the doctor exempt from having to physically do abortions himself.

You seem to keep ignoring that.

Out of curiousity, what would you say if instead of citing religion as his reason for not prescribing morning-after pills, he said: "Sorry, but I believe the dangers of its side-effects outweighs its benefit. I don't know anyone off-hand to refer you to, but I would suggest that you speak with your rape counsellor. Your rape counsellor would be most likely to have that information available."
What if he just prescribed the pill? You're presenting an entirely different situation.

But sure, I'll humour you.

Saying the dangers of its side-effects far outweigh its benefits is being dishonest. It makes it sound as though the treatment would put her in immediate danger.

If he were honest about his answer and said, "for religious reasons I refuse to offer you that treatment, nor do I know a doctor that can prescribe it to you; however, I'll send the rape counselor in to see you and she will be able to help."

But that's not what the doctor did, is it?

He didn't send a rape counselor in to see her. He didn't send anyone, without religious hangups, in to see her and discuss her options with her. The doctor left the woman hanging...both women in fact.

If the doctor told her to wait in the ER until the rape counselor could see her and get her a doctor to prescribe her the MAP, there wouldn't be the problem of Dr. Gish not referring these women to someone who doesn't have the same religious hangups. The Dr. would've upheld his ethical responsibility of getting them the treatment they need and presenting them with all of their options.

So, your question is completely baseless and not deserving of an answer, but since you're having trouble understanding any point of view other than your own, I'm happy to oblige you with one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZEALOT - IMPLIES EXTREME OR EXCESSIVE DEVOTION TO A CAUSE AND VEHEMENT ACTIVITY IN ITS SUPPORT (ZEALOTS OF REFORM); FANATIC SUGGESTS THE UNREASONABLE OVERZEALOUSNESS OF ONE WHO GOES TO ANY LENGTH TO MAINTAIN OR CARRY OUT HIS OR HER BELIEFS

ZEALOUS - CHARACTERIZED BY, OR SHOWING ZEAL; ARDENTLY DEVOTED TO A PURPOSE; FERVENT; ENTHUSIASTIC.

*******

Religious people aren't the only ones who can be zealots.

"crazy OR a zealot OR as bad as the religious"

You do understand there's 3 items there, right?

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does my agreeing to an abortion have to do with it? I'm not the one who's going to perform the abortion! I'm not her guardian. I don't have any say on the matter whether I agree or not. She'll do what she wants whether I agree with it or not.

If she wants to, I'm sure she'll find a doctor who'll agree to give her one.

Since abortion is now legal, she has the right to choose whether she'll have the abortion or not.

The point is that you have no point. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it and its ridiculous.

If you don't think Dr. Gish should provide her with the pill, nor do you think he should inform her of her options, nor do you think he should have to refer her to a doctor that will prescribe it, nor do you think rape counselors should have to be in the hospital and referred to the patient by the doctor, then you're playing with a time-sensitive issue that has a high likelihood of ending up with a rape or incest victim impregnated.

When that happens because under this doctor's watch (doctor who "supposedly" has a legal right to withhold information or refuse to refer the patient to another doctor, which you support) the girl had to run around and find the information she needs (that is IF she knows the information is there to be found), are you then ok with the rape/incest victim seeking out a doctor to perform an abortion?

What if there are no doctors willing to perform abortions anywhere near this girl? Something doctors do not have to do if they are not comfortable with it. What if she can't find a doctor to do the procedure, do you think the doctor does not have an obligation to find her a doctor that will?

If she can't find anyone else to do it, nor do you feel the doctor is obligated to find her someone, I would like to ask if you are aware that girls were being seriously injured by "underground" abortion clinics at one point in time?

At what point are you going to stop with the 'legal' bullshit and start looking at the ethical and even moral aspect and realize that this man's RELIGION has made him act in a completely unethical and arguably immoral manner. When a doctor's religious beliefs hinder patient care, as is obviously the case in the article I posted, then it shows that religion does not produce, foster or even encourage moral behaviour. It has in fact had the opposite effect, in the sense that it has made an otherwise good man, trying to act with the best intention, act like a complete and utterly immoral buffoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For another interesting example of how religious doctrine impacts patient care, have a look at the Catholic church's doctrine regarding ectopic pregnancy.

An ectopic pregnancy is one where the embryo implants in the wrong place, usually the fallopian tube, rather than in the uterus. There is no room to for the fetus to grow in the fallopian tube, so as the fetus grows larger it will cause the woman intense pain and suffering, bleeding, and possibly death. The fetus itself also has a harder time getting the nutrients it needs when it is in this location, and a miscarriage may result. If there isn't a miscarriage, the fetus will grow to a point where the mother will have life-threatening internal bleeding.

An ectopic pregnancy always ends in the death of the fetus, whether by miscarriage, or surgical intervention, or by the mother's death.

But how to treat it?

Well, you can do it the easy way, or you can do it the Catholic way.

The easy way? An RU486 pill. Or if it's too late for that, then surgery similar to arthroscopic surgery that removes the fetus from the fallopian tube.

Yes, this kills the fetus. Remember, the fetus is going to die anyway. It's chance of surviving to birth is zero.

But what's the Catholic way? Read about it here:

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57

or here:

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic...ctopicpregnancy

The Catholic teaching on ectopic pregnancy, as these articles explain, is that neither RU486 nor the arthroscopic-type surgery are allowed, because either one of them is an attack on the fetus. So what's left?

Well, first the woman will endure intense pain, possibly weeks of it, resulting from this condition. She must wait for a miscarriage. Or, if the miscarriage doesn't happen, they can operate on her... once her internal hemorrhaging has become so severe that her life is at risk.

Once her condition has become sufficiently severe that operating on her is permitted, the Catholic option is not to remove the fetus from the fallopian tube. As a direct attack upon the fetus, this is not permitted. Instead, the whole fallopian tube is removed. This kills the fetus too, of course. But it's different, you see, because rather than acting directly on the fetus, they have operated on the mother.

So rather than deal with this with pill, or a straightforward surgery that leaves her reproductive organs intact... she gets to experience the intense suffering and risk to her health posed by the pregnancy. And then she gets to have a piece of her reproductive organs hacked out for no other reason than to avoid directly acting upon a fetus that is going to be killed in the operation anyway.

Utterly astonishing.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is being argued, and it is apparently enacted in law in some jurisdictions, that doctors are entitled to allow their religious beliefs affect the care they provide for their patients.

It seems to me, then, that as a patient, I should certainly be entitled to ask for detailed information about my doctor's religious beliefs, and to request a different doctor if I don't like the answers he gives me.

Normally, I would not feel any right to ask for this information. I would normally feel that one's religious beliefs are a private matter, and none of my business.

However, the argument presented in this thread seems to be that a doctor can bring his religion to work with him, so in fact his religious beliefs would become very much my business. If those religious beliefs have an influence over the care I receive, then I'm entitled to have that information beforehand. I also think a hospital would have to have detailed information about its doctors' religious beliefs, and that it would be perfectly justified in not hiring a doctor because of those beliefs if he's unable to provide services that that facility needs from a doctor.

Does that seem fair?

I am wondering, because the people who are the most avid defenders of Dr Gish's right to allow his beliefs to affect the treatment he provides are also the people most likely to cry "discrimination!" if patients or hospitals choose some other doctor because of the limits his religious beliefs put on his job duties.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So he can't lie, but if he doesn't say anything at all that's acceptable? What is this, "Don't Ask Don't Tell General Hospital"?

I strongly disagree. There are many instances where doing nothing is simply not a moral course of action. (if you see a person in obvious distress lying on the sidewalk, is it moral for you to do nothing? Just keep walking and not even attempt to determine whether he needs assistance? And don't call this one far-fetched, because this has happened to me more than a couple of times.)

They make people swear to tell "the *whole* truth" when they testify because neglecting to mention key details can be just as damaging as an outright lie. I have some green stuff in the fridge. It used to be a head of lettuce, but now it looks kind of like guacamole. If a friend comes over while I'm cleaning out the fridge, and says "cool! guacamole!" and goes to put some on a tortilla chip and eat some, would it be moral of me to not warn her that she's about to eat something that's going to make her really sick? Is keeping my mouth shut a moral thing to do?

Clearly not. My friend needs to know that what she's about to eat is really bad for her. It's time critical (she needs that information before she swallows that crap) and failing to provide her with that information makes me responsible for the 3 days of screaming diarrhea she suffers because of it. I could have prevented something terrible from happening to her by giving her that information in time.

For a doctor, who is trusted and relied upon, to neglect to mention something as important as a time-critical contraceptive is a crucial omission that could have had enormous consequences for the patient.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is being argued, and it is apparently enacted in law in some jurisdictions, that doctors are entitled to allow their religious beliefs affect the care they provide for their patients.

It seems to me, then, that as a patient, I should certainly be entitled to ask for detailed information about my doctor's religious beliefs, and to request a different doctor if I don't like the answers he gives me.

Normally, I would not feel any right to ask for this information. I would normally feel that one's religious beliefs are a private matter, and none of my business.

However, the argument presented in this thread seems to be that a doctor can bring his religion to work with him, so in fact his religious beliefs would become very much my business.

It seems to me Kimmy that you and Cybercoma would simply replace one form of Dogmatism A (which you don't like) with Dogmatism B that you do.

Change the term "religious beliefs" to "moral beliefs" in the sentences above and you will see the absurdity. How can anyone leave their moral beliefs aside? Your moral beliefs are displayed for all to see throughout this thread.

The issue is how does a civilized society reconcile people of differing moral beliefs. In general, it is not a wise idea to force someone to assume a pose of acceptng moral beliefs they don't genuinely hold. It's also dangerous for a single authority to impose moral beliefs.

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?
That's tantamount to asking what I would do if I suffered an injury and I was 1000 kms away from an ER.

Well, is it my fault for having the injury far from an ER or is it the fault of the ER for not being near?

Do you blame the Titanic for hitting the iceberg or do you blame the iceberg for being there?

A woman wanted a particular treatment and she happened to chance upon a doctor who for moral reasons was incapable of offering it.

You and Kimmy seem to relish jumping on a bandwagon to blame the doctor and I just don't see the problem that way.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also dangerous for a single authority to impose moral beliefs.

Exactly. And that's what this doctor is doing.

Change the term "religious beliefs" to "moral beliefs" in the sentences above and you will see the absurdity. How can anyone leave their moral beliefs aside? Your moral beliefs are displayed for all to see throughout this thread.

The issue is how does a civilized society reconcile people of differing moral beliefs. In general, it is not a wise idea to force someone to assume a pose of acceptng moral beliefs they don't genuinely hold.

Society has decided that morning after pills are legal, and therefore women have a right to use them. It is the doctor's job to provide patients with these pills. We can debate whether morning after pills should be legal based on moral grounds, but society has already determined that, and unless the law changes, that should be respected. Like I said earlier, I could claim that not working hard is against my moral beliefs, and that would give me an excuse to not work hard and not be fired. However, that would never work in real life...unless of course I can convince the majority to agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change the term "religious beliefs" to "moral beliefs" in the sentences above and you will see the absurdity. How can anyone leave their moral beliefs aside? Your moral beliefs are displayed for all to see throughout this thread.
I certainly would not call the doctor's actions to be "moral". If you're the type of person that finds it perfectly acceptable for the doctor to add further emotional injury to these rape victims, instead of getting them in contact with someone who can provide the proper care for them, then I'm sorry... but the conversation pretty much ends here. It's not even worth discussing if you find Dr. Gish's actions acceptable.
The issue is how does a civilized society reconcile people of differing moral beliefs. In general, it is not a wise idea to force someone to assume a pose of acceptng moral beliefs they don't genuinely hold. It's also dangerous for a single authority to impose moral beliefs.
The only "belief" that was being forced on anyone was Dr. Gish's belief being forced onto his patients.
That's tantamount to asking what I would do if I suffered an injury and I was 1000 kms away from an ER.
No, the question was what do you do if a doctor refuses to treat you based on his unsubstantiated "beliefs".
A woman wanted a particular treatment and she happened to chance upon a doctor who for moral reasons was incapable of offering it.

You and Kimmy seem to relish jumping on a bandwagon to blame the doctor and I just don't see the problem that way.

Actually, there were two cases. In one, the woman knew nothing of the MAP until she was discharged by the doctor and her sister brought it up. He left the patient to potentially become impregnated by he rapist, without informing her of the option to prevent the pregnancy. The other woman already knew about it. In both cases, when the doctor was confronted, he refused based on his religious beliefs.

If the MAP was not the care that these women needed, but instead an unreasonable demand they were putting on the doctor, then are you suggesting that they bear the child of their attacker? Or should they just not bother the ER doctor with their "problems" that he is clearly unable to deal with because of his religion?

Is the following example acceptable, if the doctor is to be entitled his religious freedom:

A woman is raped (I'd say violently raped, but isn't that redundant?) and manages to get herself to the only ER in that town. The doctor on duty at the time refuses to see her because it is against his religion to examine or touch a woman that is not his wife. Futhermore, the doctor will not prescribe a morning after pill to rape victims. The woman is unsure of where another hospital is, but knows that if she doesn't see a doctor without these beliefs, evidence may be lost and worse yet, she may become pregnant with her rapists child.

Is it morally acceptable for the doctor to require this rape victim to hunt down a doctor herself? Keep in mind that the doctor in the next town, may potentially hold the same beliefs as the first doctor. The doctor doesn't know, nor does he care. All the doctor knows is that according to his faith, it is morally unacceptable for him to treat this woman.

Do you honestly think this is ethical or moral behaviour for a doctor working in an emergency room?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could claim that not working hard is against my moral beliefs, and that would give me an excuse to not work hard and not be fired. However, that would never work in real life...unless of course I can convince the majority to agree with me.

I second that motion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is not wrong. You're wrong. That pretty well puts an end to the discussion.
I think showing gross insensitivity to a rape victim and not presenting her with all her options would be almost unanimously reviled, except for those, that for no other reason than religious faith, have had their morality skewed.

GROSS insensitivity in what way? Other than being frank about citing his religious belief, how was he being grossly insensitive?

After 2-3 years of silence, Boyer's sudden decision to come out to give her own testimony - the accuracy of which is highly questionable at this point based on the obvious slanted view of the article, among other things already mentioned before- is more than just insensitive.

Although I understand somehow the reason for her anger, nevertheless, it's obvious she's got an ax to grind against this doctor, not to mention another possible agenda she might have - thus I question her motive as well - that this is being used as a tool by the radical women's rights group. People like Moxie, for example!

The article blatantly paints Gish as being judgemental. But who's actually and truly being judgemental here?

Boyer and the writer of the article are the ones being judgemental, that's who!

That they would presume and judge the doctor of judging Boyer's morals....by simply citing that what she's asking for is against his religious belief! Then proceed to tarnish him for it by writing the article.

Even blaming this doctor that Boyer became so "affected profoundly" by the experience that she did not see her gynecologist for 2-3 years! But there was no mention at all about the "profound effect" of the rape itself that she did not date or go out with any men for 2-3 years. ..and yet the details of the rape was given.

Talk about the poison pen!

And the more I see that this Boyer incident is indeed a politicized tool! And I still looked at hers as an alleged rape anyway.

But giving the benefit of the doubt that indeed she was raped...

After 2-3 years, and Boyer still looks at this in a skewed way...having a misplaced anger, to say the least...obviously this woman had not gotten over her trauma! She must need psychological help! Or most of it is pure bull! As I said, we were not there to witness the whole discussion between Gish and this woman!

And I'd say shame on this writer for using this woman!

So, now it is okay to focus on and revile a man based on pure assumptions simply for exercising his right...more so than the man who actually done the crime it seems.

Talk about skewed morality indeed! :lol:

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZEALOT - IMPLIES EXTREME OR EXCESSIVE DEVOTION TO A CAUSE AND VEHEMENT ACTIVITY IN ITS SUPPORT (ZEALOTS OF REFORM); FANATIC SUGGESTS THE UNREASONABLE OVERZEALOUSNESS OF ONE WHO GOES TO ANY LENGTH TO MAINTAIN OR CARRY OUT HIS OR HER BELIEFS

ZEALOUS - CHARACTERIZED BY, OR SHOWING ZEAL; ARDENTLY DEVOTED TO A PURPOSE; FERVENT; ENTHUSIASTIC.

*******

Religious people aren't the only ones who can be zealots.

"crazy OR a zealot OR as bad as the religious"

You do understand there's 3 items there, right?

yes I do realize that.

But I figure it's the "zealotry" part that's being alluded to most of the time in this discussion. Besides being crazy and as bad as the "religious" could easily be moulded to fit the definition of zealot. Zealotry could easily encompass those two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also dangerous for a single authority to impose moral beliefs.
Exactly. And that's what this doctor is doing.
Not at all and it's frightening that you don't see the difference.

The doctor is not imposing his moral beliefs on anybody. He is not condemning this woman or forcing her to do something she doesn't want to.

We don't live in a theological state and the Catholic Church lost most of its political authority several hundred years ago.

You and others however would like to erect a new dogma now called "political correctness".

Change the term "religious beliefs" to "moral beliefs" in the sentences above and you will see the absurdity. How can anyone leave their moral beliefs aside? Your moral beliefs are displayed for all to see throughout this thread.

The issue is how does a civilized society reconcile people of differing moral beliefs. In general, it is not a wise idea to force someone to assume a pose of acceptng moral beliefs they don't genuinely hold.

Society has decided that morning after pills are legal, and therefore women have a right to use them. It is the doctor's job to provide patients with these pills. We can debate whether morning after pills should be legal based on moral grounds, but society has already determined that, and unless the law changes, that should be respected.

Prostitituion is legal in Canada so does that mean if a man stops anyone woman in the street and gives her $100, she must have sex with him?
Like I said earlier, I could claim that not working hard is against my moral beliefs, and that would give me an excuse to not work hard and not be fired. However, that would never work in real life...unless of course I can convince the majority to agree with me.
And your employer could also fire you.

If you walk into a store and steal a litre of milk claiming that theft is allowed by your religion, then don't be surprised if you get charged with shoplifting.

But if you refuse to buy or drink milk because it is contrary to your moral beliefs, should society lay charges against you?

Kimmy seems to think that since a doctor has taken an "oath", the doctor is under some kind of obligation to act. I dispute that. For heaven's sakes people, what does the word "freedom" mean?

----

We have a social contract that allows the State to coerce you to do things that you may not want to do. For example, you must pay taxes. I don't think this social contract should oblige a doctor to commit an act that offends his religious beliefs.

States that have attempted this kind of obligation have generally come to no good in the long run. I wouldn't call such societies civilized.

We have a Charter of Rights (and a long history of jurisprudence) precisely to limit how the State can coerce people.

The bottom line here is that you would have the State send this doctor to jail because he refused to do what you want him to do. I don't think that's a legitimate or civilized use of State coercion.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The doctor is not imposing his moral beliefs on anybody. He is not condemning this woman or forcing her to do something she doesn't want to.

No, he is preventing her from doing something that she does want to do because of his beliefs.

Prostitituion is legal in Canada so does that mean if a man stops anyone woman in the street and gives her $100, she must have sex with him?

That's a ridiculous comparison. Sex is only legal if it is consenting. If that woman doesn't consent to having sex with the man for $100, then of course she doesn't have to.

If you walk into a store and steal a litre of milk claiming that theft is allowed by your religion, then don't be surprised if you get charged with shoplifting.

But if you refuse to buy or drink milk because it is contrary to your moral beliefs, should society lay charges against you?

Of course not, because drinking milk is not against the law and does not harm anyone. I'm not sure about the legality of this particular case, but I'd argue that the doctor should be fired because he is causing "harm".

We have a social contract that allows the State to coerce you to do things that you may not want to do. For example, you must pay taxes. I don't think this social contract should oblige a doctor to commit an act that offends his religious beliefs.

Great, all I have to do is claim that paying taxes is against my religious beliefs :)

The bottom line here is that you would have the State send this doctor to jail because he refused to do what you want him to do. I don't think that's a legitimate or civilized use of State coercion.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I wouldn't send the doctor to jail over this issue. I do, however, think he should be fired (or at least warned, and if it persists then he should be fired). If the doctor is not doing his job by providing the best possible care for his patients, then he should be fired for not doing his job. "Religious beliefs" should not be an excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kimmy seems to think that since a doctor has taken an "oath", the doctor is under some kind of obligation to act. I dispute that. For heaven's sakes people, what does the word "freedom" mean?
Uh... doctors are obligated to act under the oath they take. Even if this doctor is not obligated to prescribe this particu lar medication, he is obligated to refer he to a doctor or get her the help she needs to ensure she does not become impregnated by a rapist. Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not, but I wouldn't send the doctor to jail over this issue. I do, however, think he should be fired (or at least warned, and if it persists then he should be fired). If the doctor is not doing his job by providing the best possible care for his patients, then he should be fired for not doing his job. "Religious beliefs" should not be an excuse.
I think what you mean to say is that the doctor should lose his license and not be allowed to practice medicine ever again for making a rape victim have to bear a rapists child and/or seek out a doctor to perform an abortion since he was unwilling to give her medication she needed to prevent the pregnancy.

How anyone can justify making an emotionally distraught rape victim "shop around" for a doctor is beyond me. It is incredibly insensitive to the point of being completely immoral. Not to mention, that as a doctor, it is completely unethical. No one has suggested that this doctor should be forced to prescribe the medication that he sees as being against his religion (although I'd like to), but the very LEAST he can do is refer the victims to a doctor that can care for them without forcing them to shop around themselves. That doctor has an obligation to get those women the help they need.

This one failed miserably because if nothing else was done, these women could have potentially become impregnated by their attackers. It was his responsibility, as a doctor in an emergency room to get those women the help they needed. No one, thus far has shown otherwise. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that this doctor did everything he could to help. What he did do, and admit to, is pass moral judgment on these women by not only refusing to prescribe the medication, but failing to act in getting them help from someone without the moral hangups this doctor had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...