.

[gc1765]

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

I said medical providers need to provide medical care for their patients. Prescribing cocaine to someone in pain is not only NOT providing medical care, but it's also illegal. This doctor did not refuse emergency contraceptives because he thought that was the best care he could provide to his patient, he refused because it was against his religion, period.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by you betsy, considering your posts in This Thread . I think this is a clear case of having a double standard.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

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

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

It was my intent to challenge the comfort zone with hypotheticals, some of which can and do happen. There are many stages and risks to abortion procedures, and although I am not a medical professional, I am certain that some of the procedures are more invasive (and life threatening) than FGM.

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

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

Such a sequence of events are both unlikely and unacceptable for the patient, but a similar outcome could happen regardless of the doctor's belief system. Furthermore, Jehovah's Witness Blood Doctrine would not apply to the entire medical staff on duty, and the transfusion could proceed anyway via remote authorization.

Frankly, I would not want a medical professional performing a procedure against their will for obvious reasons.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

It is a problem for both doctors and patients, from ethical practice to mental health issues as you have described. Procedures for gender changes, breast augmentation (in males and females), genital "enhancments", and even sale of an organ (e.g. kidney) are but some of the circumstances faced by medical professionals.

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

Yes and no....depends on the circumstances and jurisdiction. Landlords can legally descriminate under certain conditions, indeed, we have entire appartment complexes resctricted to "55 and older".

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

The current situation in Quebec is on-point and has existed for many years, regardless of "right" or "wrong". It pre-dates any recent reports of pharmacists or doctors refusing contraception services in the USA. [As an aside, abortion is not contraception.]

[Riverwind]

We cannot expect doctors to prescribe treatments that go against their personal beliefs. However, we can expect doctors to inform patients of their options. For example, a doctor may have a problem with morning after pill but that doctor should be obligated to inform a patient that such a pill exists and they will have to another doctor to get it.

[betsy]

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

I said medical providers need to provide medical care for their patients. Prescribing cocaine to someone in pain is not only NOT providing medical care, but it's also illegal. This doctor did not refuse emergency contraceptives because he thought that was the best care he could provide to his patient, he refused because it was against his religion, period.

I know what you said! Here it is!

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

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

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

You were not only talking about this one particular case. You were speaking generally.

And I was answering in that context!

My point is stilll the same. It's up to the doctors. If one doesn't trust or doesn't have confidence to what a doctor diagnosed or prescribed, then seek a second opinion.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by you betsy, considering your posts in This Thread . I think this is a clear case of having a double standard.

Can you explain. I went in there and failed to see your point. What is the double standard?

[gc1765]

You were not only talking about this one particular case. You were speaking generally.

And I was answering in that context!

Yes, generally speaking doctors need to provide the best possible medical care for their patients, regardless of their religion. That also happens to apply to this case.

My point is stilll the same. It's up to the doctors. If one doesn't trust or doesn't have confidence to what a doctor diagnosed or prescribed, then seek a second opinion.

It is up to doctors to decide what is the best treatment for their patients. In this case, it is pretty clear that (ignoring religion for a second) providing emergency contraceptives to a victim of rape was the best treatment option. It was because of religion, and religion only, that this doctor refused to prescribe emergency contraceptives not because he thought it was the best treatment for the patient.

Can you explain. I went in there and failed to see your point. What is the double standard?

Well, there's this for one:

"Taxi cab drivers have no such rights to enforce their religion on the public"

...and yet you have no problem with doctors enforcing their religion on the public?

or this "If you do not wish to transport anyone with alcohol in their possession, then the logical thing to do is what Drea had said: don't be a taxi cab driver!"

Applying that same standard, if you do not wish to prescribe emergency contraceptives, the logical thing to do is don't be a doctor! Agreed?

or how about this: "If one doesn't trust or doesn't have confidence to what a doctor diagnosed or prescribed, then seek a second opinion"

Again, applying the same standard, I guess that means if you don't have confidence in a cab driver, you should simply seek another cab. Right?

[betsy]

Can you explain. I went in there and failed to see your point. What is the double standard?

Well, there's this for one:

"Taxi cab drivers have no such rights to enforce their religion on the public"

...and yet you have no problem with doctors enforcing their religion on the public?

or this "If you do not wish to transport anyone with alcohol in their possession, then the logical thing to do is what Drea had said: don't be a taxi cab driver!"

Applying that same standard, if you do not wish to prescribe emergency contraceptives, the logical thing to do is don't be a doctor! Agreed?

or how about this: "If one doesn't trust or doesn't have confidence to what a doctor diagnosed or prescribed, then seek a second opinion"

Again, applying the same standard, I guess that means if you don't have confidence in a cab driver, you should simply seek another cab. Right?

Again, I don't see any double standard in my case. Actually, I haven't even said where exactly I stand in this one particular issue...other than to ask a few questions and make general statements, AND post BOTH versions of the Hippocrates Oath (which I specified 'for the sake of discussion').

You are jumping the gun and making assumptions.

I might have missed it...so if you can please point out where I gave my stance on this said issue.

As for this statement you made:

"Applying that same standard, if you do not wish to prescribe emergency contraceptives, the logical thing to do is don't be a doctor! Agreed?"

No! Not agreed!

I'm not applying the same standard to a taxi driver who is deciding not to carry a passenger because he has a bottle of whiskey in his pocket to a doctor who is making health and welfare decisions for his patient, and life and death decisions for her child. The taxi driver is attempting to impose his ritualistic religious behaviour on our society...the doctor is making decisions based on his moral standards.

Both Hippocrates Oaths (the ancient and modern versions) were specific:

The ancient specifically forbade abortion. The modern, specifically warned about "playing God."

If the doctor believes that the fetus is a living human being, then he has to take that into consideration.

I don't know any taxi drivers' oath. Perhaps you can cite it for me. Perhaps it says, "thou shalt not carry alcohol." But I doubt it exists. A Muslim's aversion to alcohol is scarcely a moral issue anymore than the devil's aversion to holy water. Certainly not in our society.

[gc1765]

Again, I don't see any double standard in my case. Actually, I haven't even said where exactly I stand in this one particular issue...other than to ask a few questions and make general statements, AND post BOTH versions of the Hippocrates Oath (which I specified 'for the sake of discussion').

You are jumping the gun and making assumptions.

I might have missed it...so if you can please point out where I gave my stance on this said issue.

Betsy,

I think you are smart enough to realize that you did apply a double standard, which I pointed out to you in my previous post. It takes a big person to admit they were wrong, and I have tremendous respect for people who are able to do so. I'd like to give you the opportunity now to admit you made a mistake by applying a double standard, including this statement here:

"The taxi driver is attempting to impose his ritualistic religious behaviour on our society...the doctor is making decisions based on his moral standards"

I could just as easily say that the doctor is attempting to impose his ritualistic religious behaviour on our society...the taxi driver is making decisions based on his moral standards.

Again, I think you are smart enough to realize that this is a double standard, so again, if you want to admit you made a mistake, I'm sure you will gain a lot of respect from a lot of people on this board.

I'm not applying the same standard to a taxi driver who is deciding not to carry a passenger because he has a bottle of whiskey in his pocket to a doctor who is making health and welfare decisions for his patient, and life and death decisions for her child.

That is precisely the problem, the doctor is NOT making health and welfare decisions for his patient, he is making decisions for his own personal benefit, with respect to his religion. He did NOT make this decision because it was in the best interest of the patient. Again, I think you are smart enough to realize this.

[betsy]

deleted.

[betsy]

At least you have something right. I am smart enough to know a double standard when I see one. Apparently you're not. A double standard is applying different stardards to different subjects for the same behaviour. I'm applying different standards to different subjects for different behaviour. I know that's a tough one to muddle through, but give it your best shot.

I could just as easily say that the doctor is attempting to impose his ritualistic religious behaviour on our society...the taxi driver is making decisions based on his moral standards.

Yes you could, and probably will but I still hope you'd be at least smart enough to notice what nonsense you're talking. The practice of medicine, at least in our culture, is anything but ritualistic, unless of course you're talking about our daily sacrifice of thousands of children before their birth. The petulance of a group a radical Muslims about an imagined offence against their religion is ritualistic. The religious requirement of Muslims not to possess alcohol is a requirement of Muslims, not of passengers in their cabs. And its similar in essence to the requirement of Catholics to cross themselves in church. not required by Christianity and harmless in itself at least until Catholics demand that athiests and others cross themselves near a Catholic church.

The requirement of doctors to not perform abortions is a requirement of doctors according to their oath, not some arbitrary ritual devised by those who want control over their subjects. In fact, it is abortionists that should be required to forfeit their right to practice medicine, not the doctors who refuse to do it. It is abortionists that are offending their oath. And who really cares about Muslim taxi drivers. Not me, until they try telling me what to do and where to do it.

As for your allowing me an opportunity to "admit my mistake", give it a rest. Such pretentious arrogance is laughable. Remember, I just read your post.

[gc1765]

I'm a little disappointed in you Betsy. I know you have a double standard, and you know you have a double standard, but you can't admit it. Oh well, I guess I just put too much faith in you. The least you could do, though, is not confuse abortion with emergency contraceptives, which IS the topic of this thread.

In fact, it is abortionists that should be required to forfeit their right to practice medicine, not the doctors who refuse to do it. It is abortionists that are offending their oath.

[cybercoma]

The strawman in this thread is packed so full it could feed an entire herd of cattle.

[betsy]

I'm a little disappointed in you Betsy. I know you have a double standard, and you know you have a double standard, but you can't admit it. Oh well, I guess I just put too much faith in you. The least you could do, though, is not confuse abortion with emergency contraceptives, which IS the topic of this thread.

In fact, it is abortionists that should be required to forfeit their right to practice medicine, not the doctors who refuse to do it. It is abortionists that are offending their oath.

Well qc, you are not recognizing one important fact:

Again, I don't see any double standard in my case. Actually, I haven't even said where exactly I stand in this one particular issue...other than to ask a few questions and make general statements, AND post BOTH versions of the Hippocrates Oath (which I specified 'for the sake of discussion').

You are jumping the gun and making assumptions.

I might have missed it...so if you can please point out where I gave my stance on this said issue.

Can you point the post before your post #31 where I made a stance about this particular morning pill issue?

Like I said, all I've posted were some questions, general comments and copies of the ancient/modern Hippocrates Oath (for the sake of discussion).

[betsy]

I'm a little disappointed in you Betsy. I know you have a double standard, and you know you have a double standard, but you can't admit it. Oh well, I guess I just put too much faith in you. The least you could do, though, is not confuse abortion with emergency contraceptives, which IS the topic of this thread.

In fact, it is abortionists that should be required to forfeit their right to practice medicine, not the doctors who refuse to do it. It is abortionists that are offending their oath.

Yeah, so next time talk about the specific situation....don't give general comments about doctors and their responsibilities. See, how easily we got side-tracked???

You're right, morning pill is the topic.

[gc1765]

Again, I don't see any double standard in my case. Actually, I haven't even said where exactly I stand in this one particular issue...other than to ask a few questions and make general statements, AND post BOTH versions of the Hippocrates Oath (which I specified 'for the sake of discussion').

You are jumping the gun and making assumptions.

I might have missed it...so if you can please point out where I gave my stance on this said issue.

Well, actually, I already pointed it out to you. I'm not sure if you are just trolling here, or whether you actually forgot already, but I'll point it out again: "And if the doctors' judgement does not agree with the patient's...well, there's always the option of going to another doctor!". So if you don't agree with a cab driver's requirement to not carry alcohol in the cab, then you can go to another cab driver, right? Is that what you said in the other thread? Or do you want to answer the question here and now?

But perhaps I'm wrong...perhaps you DON'T think doctors should be refusing morning after pills. If that's the case, why don't you just come out and say it? Prove to me that you don't have a double standard, and I will take back what I said.

[gc1765]

Yeah, so next time talk about the specific situation....don't give general comments about doctors and their responsibilities. See, how easily we got side-tracked???

You're right, morning pill is the topic.

All I said was that it's a doctor's job to provide the best possible medical care for their patients. I don't think all doctors should be required to perform abortions, just as I don't think all doctors should be required to perform heart surgery.

[cybercoma]

Yeah, so next time talk about the specific situation....don't give general comments about doctors and their responsibilities. See, how easily we got side-tracked???

You're right, morning pill is the topic.

All I said was that it's a doctor's job to provide the best possible medical care for their patients. I don't think all doctors should be required to perform abortions, just as I don't think all doctors should be required to perform heart surgery.

If it's certain that mother and baby will die if the mother gives birth and there's a very good possibility that the mother will survive should the baby be aborted, should a doctor be allowed to refuse the partial birth abortion?

Since we're dealing with hypotheticals and all.

[bush_cheney2004]

If it's certain that mother and baby will die if the mother gives birth and there's a very good possibility that the mother will survive should the baby be aborted, should a doctor be allowed to refuse the partial birth abortion?

Since we're dealing with hypotheticals and all.

Of course....find a qualified doctor who will perform the procedure without any such reservations.

[gc1765]

If it's certain that mother and baby will die if the mother gives birth and there's a very good possibility that the mother will survive should the baby be aborted, should a doctor be allowed to refuse the partial birth abortion?

Since we're dealing with hypotheticals and all.

Yes, assuming that the doctor is qualified to perform an abortion. I don't know much about the process, but I assume it takes a certain amount of skill and training to do so, and I imagine not all doctors perform abortions.

[kimmy]

It was my intent to challenge the comfort zone with hypotheticals, some of which can and do happen. There are many stages and risks to abortion procedures, and although I am not a medical professional, I am certain that some of the procedures are more invasive (and life threatening) than FGM.

Since "FGM" is expressly designed to ruin the "patient's" ability to enjoy sex, I'm somewhat doubtful that any method of abortion is as invasive.

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

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

Such a sequence of events are both unlikely

No kidding it's unlikely. You know why it's unlikely? It's unlikely because the stupidity of having a doctor who refuses to perform blood transfusions staffing the emergency room is obvious to everyone.

Apparently the stupidity of having a doctor who can't provide contraception caring for rape victims was not equally obvious.

and unacceptable for the patient,

Well good. At least we got that one nailed down.

but a similar outcome could happen regardless of the doctor's belief system.

Sure. Maybe they don't have the right blood type on hand, or maybe the doctor has been working for 26 straight hours and screws it up, or maybe the patient's wounds are so severe that he dies regardless of the care he receives. But that wasn't the question. The question was, is it acceptible for the patient if the doctor refuses to provide the blood transfusion because he's a JW.

The answer, as you put it, was that this is

unacceptable for the patient

What was that again?

unacceptable for the patient

And despite all the other weasel-talk in your response, the bottom line was that the situation is

unacceptable for the patient

one more time

unacceptable for the patient

just because I like the sound of it.

Frankly, I would not want a medical professional performing a procedure against their will for obvious reasons.

...because opening a bottle and handing over an RU-486 pill could be botched if the doctor's not at the top of his game?

-k

[kimmy]

I don't know any taxi drivers' oath. Perhaps you can cite it for me. Perhaps it says, "thou shalt not carry alcohol." But I doubt it exists. A Muslim's aversion to alcohol is scarcely a moral issue anymore than the devil's aversion to holy water. Certainly not in our society.

People should not impose their religious beliefs on others, and if peoples religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job then they should find a different job, unless Betsy agrees with the religious beliefs in question. See, GC? It's not a double standard at all!

-k

[betsy]

People should not impose their religious beliefs on others, and if peoples religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job then they should find a different job, -k

It would be one very dumb person...or someone without any creativity anyway....to walk away from a lucrative and prestigious job, especially if one had invested quite some time and money, and most likely being in debt with student loans just to attain it....just because somebody says "to hell with your morals and your oath." I'd surely find ways to work around it before I throw in the towel!

Are we prevented from leaving Canada to work in other places where being a doctor will be more than welcome? That is, if we are not allowed any options at all, not even putting up any signs in our clinic's door that say:

"Sorry, I don't butcher babies."

"Morning Pills? In your dreams, babe!"

"I'm Catholic. Get the drift?"

[betsy]

I don't know any taxi drivers' oath. Perhaps you can cite it for me. Perhaps it says, "thou shalt not carry alcohol." But I doubt it exists. A Muslim's aversion to alcohol is scarcely a moral issue anymore than the devil's aversion to holy water. Certainly not in our society.

People should not impose their religious beliefs on others, and if peoples religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job then they should find a different job, unless Betsy agrees with the religious beliefs in question. See, GC? It's not a double standard at all!

-k

BUT why did I mention taxi driver's "oath", Kimmy? It's because of this:

Both Hippocrates Oaths (the ancient and modern versions) were specific:

The ancient specifically forbade abortion. The modern, specifically warned about "playing God."

If the doctor believes that the fetus is a living human being, then he has to take that into consideration.

I don't know any taxi drivers' oath. Perhaps you can cite it for me. Perhaps it says, "thou shalt not carry alcohol." But I doubt it exists. A Muslim's aversion to alcohol is scarcely a moral issue anymore than the devil's aversion to holy water. Certainly not in our society.

Why, can you cite any taxi drivers' oath that should be upheld?

And why did I refer to the Hippocrates Oath? It's because of this:

I thought that the Hippocratic oath requires the doctor to be the patient's advocate, but apparently that's not true anymore.

-k

So, what's all this talk about Hippocratic Oath, Kimmy? Why bring it up at all if you couldn't even care less about the significance of an oath....much more quite easily dismiss it and regard it as nothing more than the equivalence of a taxi driver's petty "petulant belief meter" (whom I presume did not do any oath-ing at all).

That may not fall under the definition of a so-called double standard. BUT it does smells like an outright hypocrisy to me .

Convenient hypocrisy.

[betsy]

Again, I don't see any double standard in my case. Actually, I haven't even said where exactly I stand in this one particular issue...other than to ask a few questions and make general statements, AND post BOTH versions of the Hippocrates Oath (which I specified 'for the sake of discussion').

You are jumping the gun and making assumptions.

I might have missed it...so if you can please point out where I gave my stance on this said issue.

Well, actually, I already pointed it out to you. I'm not sure if you are just trolling here, or whether you actually forgot already, but I'll point it out again: "And if the doctors' judgement does not agree with the patient's...well, there's always the option of going to another doctor!". So if you don't agree with a cab driver's requirement to not carry alcohol in the cab, then you can go to another cab driver, right? Is that what you said in the other thread? Or do you want to answer the question here and now?

You're citing the wrong post, qc. That response you cited was done after you accused me of having double standards...after you jumped the gun with your assumptions....after you tried to put words in my mouth .....after grabbing and using another thread to try to fit it into this discussion.

Again, for the sake of clarity:

Can you point the post before your post #31 where I made a stance about this particular morning pill issue?

Like I said, all I've posted were some questions, general comments and copies of the ancient/modern Hippocrates Oath (for the sake of discussion).

So pin-point exactly where I've made a definite stance on the issue prior to your post with your sudden accusations of me having this so-called double standard! Before your post #31!

I'm giving you a chance to justify your accusation........or to show that accusing me outright was just an honest and careless mistake on your part, and that you were wrong.

[jester]

Seems sometimes they even stop healthcare.......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070623/ap_on_...6u47jUyD8nVJRIF

Patient's death jeopardizes hospital - Yahoo! News