.

[gc1765]

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.

Betsy,

The post I quoted is from post #20 in this thread (#20 comes BEFORE #31). Now, do you care to answer my questions, or are you going to keep trolling?

[betsy]

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.

Betsy,

The post I quoted is from post #20 in this thread (#20 comes BEFORE #31). Now, do you care to answer my questions, or are you going to keep trolling?

I know that that's post #20! Here is actually the complete post of it:

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!

And that was in answer to your general comment about doctors needing to provide medical support!

And I was responding in the same conext....giving a general comment regarding doctors' judgement or diagnosis- take note of the plural sense in "doctors"....on BOTH lines!

If you hadn't noticed, I was not asking questions regarding hospital procedures regarding rape cases in my other post ...nor did I dig up the two versions of the OATH (with specific statement "for the sake of discussion") for no reasons at all. I purposefully did not give a direct answer to the topic....for I fully want to understand the details!

Unfortunately for you, you jumped the gun and made assumptions and proceeded to put words in my mouth!

Again, let me repeat....show me a post where-in I gave my exact position regarding this particular doctor refusing to give morning pills to this raped woman. BEFORE POST #31

[kimmy]

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!

I'd suggest that a possible work-around for Dr Gish would have been to refer such requests to a doctor who is willing to provide emergency contraception, something he expressly refused to do when asked. That's the point where it goes from "I can't provide that because my beliefs prohibit it" to "I don't want you to obtain that because my beliefs prohibit it."

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?"

And yet you're up in arms when the Somali cabbies inform their customers "Sorry, I don't transport liquor." And yet you can't see a double standard.

Also, while posting signs like that might certainly be a possibility if you run a small clinic, it's not actually an option at a hospital. When you're treated in an emergency ward, you don't have a choice of which doctor you see.

BUT why did I mention taxi driver's "oath", Kimmy?

Because you're desperately trying to find an explanation for why your contradictory views aren't a double standard?

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.

While pro-lifers would argue that performing an abortion is playing god, just about everybody (pro-lifers included) will recognize that deciding for the patient that she should not receive contraception is also playing god. Dr Gish made a decision that could have drastically altered the lives of these two women in direct opposition to their express wishes. He put his opinion ahead of the patient's desire to control the course of her own life. That's playing god.

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.

The spirit of the oath is that the doctor have his patients' interests at heart. When Dr Gish treated these two rape victims, their expressed need was to avoid further compounding their tragedy by bearing a thug's child. Dr Gish decided, based purely on his own that the patients should, if impregnanted, bear their attackers' children. That's not having the patient's interests at heart, that's imposing one's own beliefs on another person when they're at their most vulnerable and helpless. He played god with these two womens' lives by making that choice for them. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of the intent of the Hippocratic oath.

-k

[betsy]

I'd suggest that a possible work-around for Dr Gish would have been to refer such requests to a doctor who is willing to provide emergency contraception, something he expressly refused to do when asked. That's the point where it goes from "I can't provide that because my beliefs prohibit it" to "I don't want you to obtain that because my beliefs prohibit it."

If Dr Gish is having some problems with his religious belief....the most practical, diplomatic AND TROUBLE-FREE solution would've been to answer the woman's request for a referral, "sorry....but I can't think of anyone right now who'd agree to that." Then I'd promptly point her towards the reception desk or a clerk who might give names of other doctors.

Unless Dr Gish was only anxiously aching to go head-to-head and to take the fight of religious freedom wherever it may lead, and purposefully issued that response knowing fully well there's the high probability that it would get challenged, and he's only too willing to prove his point....then I guess he was on the right track.

Dr Gish made a decision that could have drastically altered the lives of these two women in direct opposition to their express wishes. He put his opinion ahead of the patient's desire to control the course of her own life. That's playing god.

Playing God? Just for refusing to give a bloody morning pill?

Did she drop dead???? Did her arm fall off???? Did her tummy suddenly swell up????

Well Kimmy, that woman still had the control of her life! At least she knows she'll never get the pill from Gish....and she can skeedaddle from his office in a huff and hie off to find the nearest yellow pages and start phoning!

Let's not get too ridiculously melodramatic!

As for the rest of your comment, I suggest you better go back and read carefully and comprehend what was exactly said, and explained.....all the way from the start so you don't miss out on anything.

One of this days, if I have the time...I'll tell you an anecdote about the circling dog.

[betsy]

And if that raped woman wants to set something right for everyone in this unpleasant scenario, instead of wasting her time barking at Gish, she should fight for a list of names of pro-choice doctors willing to murder...I mean to abort babies....or give morning pills, etc....be posted on every hospitals in the country.

Unless this raped woman wants to use her plight as a tool for her agenda (if she is one of those pro-choice or feminist radicals), squaring off with this doctor in court over religious freedom and get this bloody thing legislated as well....I guess she was on the right track.

[gc1765]

Unfortunately for you, you jumped the gun and made assumptions and proceeded to put words in my mouth!

Again, let me repeat....show me a post where-in I gave my exact position regarding this particular doctor refusing to give morning pills to this raped woman. BEFORE POST #31

Call it a hunch. Was I right? Or do you think doctors should NOT be refusing the morning after pill?

[betsy]

Unfortunately for you, you jumped the gun and made assumptions and proceeded to put words in my mouth!

Again, let me repeat....show me a post where-in I gave my exact position regarding this particular doctor refusing to give morning pills to this raped woman. BEFORE POST #31

Call it a hunch. Was I right? Or do you think doctors should NOT be refusing the morning after pill?

You accuse me of having double standards, based on a "hunch?"

You are using a "hunch" as the major thrust in your argument?? Are you for real???

In a way, it is funny!

Well I've got more than just a hunch, that you actually don't even understand that we are definitely not on the same page at all!

And I definitely have no wish to waste my time arguing with someone whose opinions are based on a hunch!

The least you could do to salvage your credibility is to admit that you made an honest mistake . That in your zeal to prove me wrong...you've recklessly jumped the gun and made careless assumptions....and labelled me based on a stupid hunch!

I guess you're desperate. But that's no excuse!

[gc1765]

Sounds like I was right after all...

[betsy]

Sounds like I was right after all...

Whatever...

Hunch....BWA-HA-HA-HA

[Mad_Michael]

One of this days, if I have the time...I'll tell you an anecdote about the circling dog.

Curiously enough, your posts remind me of the expression, 'that dog don't hunt'.

[M.Dancer]

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

Are genital mutilations a legal right of women?

in somalia they are.......

[Mad_Michael]

in somalia they are.......

I believe that particular 'right' actually belongs to the men of Somalia, not the women of Somalia.

[guyser]

Prescribing cocaine to someone in pain is not only NOT providing medical care, but it's also illegal.

Hmm, I know for a fact that what was put in my nose prior to a minor operation was pure Cocaine. IT is a controlled substance, illegal for trade on the street , but it is not illegal.

Yes it was given to me by a Doc.

[M.Dancer]

in somalia they are.......

I believe that particular 'right' actually belongs to the men of Somalia, not the women of Somalia.

....Yeah you would think that.....but 100% of the time the operation is done by women and it is the women who pressure the mother to make the child under go the clitorectomy.

Men for the most part live in ignorance of the womens genitals and only know what they have been told, that a woman without the cicumsision will be morally corrupt and prone to hysteria.....so it isn't so much as the men forcing the operation.....women collude 100%

.....anyone want to jump at the root of the word "hysteria"?

[Mad_Michael]

in somalia they are.......

I believe that particular 'right' actually belongs to the men of Somalia, not the women of Somalia.

....Yeah you would think that.....but 100% of the time the operation is done by women and it is the women who pressure the mother to make the child under go the clitorectomy.

Men for the most part live in ignorance of the womens genitals and only know what they have been told, that a woman without the cicumsision will be morally corrupt and prone to hysteria.....so it isn't so much as the men forcing the operation.....women collude 100%

.....anyone want to jump at the root of the word "hysteria"?

Let's ban the practice in Somalia and see who screams loudest. I'll bet its the men.

That the men can demonstrate high level control over their women is not proof that the women are independent or seeking their own interest.

If prisoners in a penitentary work making licence plates, does that mean that they chose this labour? That this labour is a perfect expression of their personhood? Does it prove that making licence plates is popular with convicted felons? This analogy is not meant to say that women in Somalia are exactly like prisoners, but I respectfully submit, women in Somalia don't have much that we would consider as 'rights'.

Indeed, many of the supervisors of slave labour in the Confederate South were slaves as well. If a black slave orders around another black slave, does this mean that blacks supported slavery?

[betsy]

One of this days, if I have the time...I'll tell you an anecdote about the circling dog.

Curiously enough, your posts remind me of the expression, 'that dog don't hunt'.

I never heard of the expression, so I don't know what you mean.

[betsy]

This is an embarrassing subject for some women, particularly young girls

Birthcontrol pills? Embarrassing? Nowadays? Why would it be?

Nobody seem to be embarrassed about being young, unmarried and knocked up anymore...so why would they care...much more be embarrassed about some pills that's being treated like regular vitamin c?

Something seriously needs to be done about this. Awareness needs to be raised around the country on this subject.

We've been raising awareness since God knows when! Even most parents are so highly aware of this program to make the youth aware! Even classrooms are in sync!

How much more awareness do we have to raise? We practically supply not only information....but also contraceptives to the youth! These young girls mostly have online access as well....teeming with help and support sites.

[betsy]

But what I find quite interesting in that article (if what the woman says is accurate), is the boldness of Dr Gish in frankly citing his religion as the reason. This is like waving the red flag to the bull.

I guess some doctors like Gish, are willing to make a provocative and aggressive stand on moral and religious ground. Good for them!

[kuzadd]

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

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

Should doctors be allowed to refuse treatment based on their religious beliefs? If so, should they be required to refer the patients to a doctor whose decision making is not obscured by religious convictions?

cybercoma: I'll do you the favour of answering based on the scenario presented in your article.

NO, doctors SHOULD NOT be allowed to refuse treatment based on their religious beliefs, why because logically thinking THEIR religious beliefs, are THEIRS.They are not mine, or necessarily yours,they may be shared by no one. therefore they are irrelevant, to the necessity for medical treatment.

Treatment should be based on what is necessary to treat the patient in the manner that is BEST for the patient, in the case of this woman, being raped, she REQUESTED the morning after pill, which was the BEST TREATMENT, for her in this case, she knew it , she asked for it and she should have gotten it!

[myata]

In my view, these doctors should be kicked out of the public system, period. They can exercise their private beliefs in their private practice. Then, depending on the legalities of the oath they take, maybe they can still be sued for refusing to provide essential service to the patient.

[gc1765]

I guess some doctors like Gish, are willing to make a provocative and aggressive stand on moral and religious ground. Good for them!

Taxi cab drivers have no such rights to enforce their religion on the public...in a public street...driving a vehicle meant for public service.

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!

Is that too hard to understand for us Canadians? It is just plain common sense!

Yeah, no double standard there

[M.Dancer]

in somalia they are.......

I believe that particular 'right' actually belongs to the men of Somalia, not the women of Somalia.

....Yeah you would think that.....but 100% of the time the operation is done by women and it is the women who pressure the mother to make the child under go the clitorectomy.

Men for the most part live in ignorance of the womens genitals and only know what they have been told, that a woman without the cicumsision will be morally corrupt and prone to hysteria.....so it isn't so much as the men forcing the operation.....women collude 100%

.....anyone want to jump at the root of the word "hysteria"?

Let's ban the practice in Somalia and see who screams loudest. I'll bet its the men.

That the men can demonstrate high level control over their women is not proof that the women are independent or seeking their own interest.

If prisoners in a penitentary work making licence plates, does that mean that they chose this labour? That this labour is a perfect expression of their personhood? Does it prove that making licence plates is popular with convicted felons? This analogy is not meant to say that women in Somalia are exactly like prisoners, but I respectfully submit, women in Somalia don't have much that we would consider as 'rights'.

Indeed, many of the supervisors of slave labour in the Confederate South were slaves as well. If a black slave orders around another black slave, does this mean that blacks supported slavery?

That's an interesting analogy. In this case i would say they are prisoners of their culture.

[Mad_Michael]

That's an interesting analogy. In this case i would say they are prisoners of their culture.

Yes. A culture that is officially dominated by men and where women have few rights, if any at all.

[guyser]

I guess some doctors like Gish, are willing to make a provocative and aggressive stand on moral and religious ground. Good for them!

Strip them of their licence. Half of them already have a god complex, cut 'em at the knees and send them on their way.

[cybercoma]

We've been raising awareness since God knows when! Even most parents are so highly aware of this program to make the youth aware! Even classrooms are in sync!

How much more awareness do we have to raise? We practically supply not only information....but also contraceptives to the youth! These young girls mostly have online access as well....teeming with help and support sites.

The awareness I was referring to was that of doctors refusing to give morning after pills to girls who are raped or prescribe birth control for those who have painful/irregular menstruation or perform abortions on mothers who will die otherwise because they're too concerned about their mythological beliefs to be concerned with real human beings.