.

[Sully]

Sure, and I'll bet people in other professions have their own convictions as well. Imagine a vegetarian working at McDonald's who refused to serve customers hamburgers because they contain meat. I wonder how long that person would keep their job for. Or a Muslim taxi driver who refused to carry passengers with alcohol because it goes against his religious beliefs. I'm sure you'd agree with that 100% as well, right?

DOCTOR VS. BURGER GUY

Hmmmmmm........lets see a vegetarian serving burgers at mcdonalds, I would hazard a guess and say that they would have many workers who are vegetarian and still serving burgers. Now lets look a little bit deeper, a vegetarian is someone who by choice does not eat meat, great wonderful its their choice, but they may also choose to still serve a meateater. But you know the wonderful thing is that they have a choice, they can serve or not serve a customer. And now the key point, since this was an obviously wonderful well thought out comparison, is listed below.

Lets compare the duties of doctor vs. McEDEES Burger Flipper

DOCTOR DUTIES:

Prescribe drugs, diagnose disease, provide advice, perform surgeries etc......and to think they studied for 8 or more years to do this

McEDEES Burger Flipper:

Flip burgers and custodial duties

Now lets compare again the doctor who performs thousands of tasks with the particular issue of this thread which represents about 0.001% of his potential duties as a doctor

Now lets MCbring into this comparison the burger flipper, they flip burgers and clean up the restaurant a little. So 95% of their time is devoted to serving burgers. If they knowingly refuse to, fire them because they are refusing to do what their jobs asks of them. Another great thing is that the fired worker can go work elsewhere (thank god for such a democratic notion). I do not know of anywhere in his contract as a doctor that states that this doctor MUST provide her the drug.

And to play along with your ingenius analogy, I guarantee you that this doctor did not focus his studies on how to perform an abortion, then go apply for a position in a health care facility to perform abortions and then say as he is about to perform an abortion " Ahh guys I am so so soooo sorry but I cannot perform an abortion after all, its just not in me to do"

Another thing, the weight on the conscience of the doctor vs. veggie burger flipper is no where even comparable in my eyes.

TAXI CAB DRIVER VS. PUBLIC

Well the taxi cab driver issue is easy. Lets use me as an example in the following scenario.

I hail a cab with after coming out of the liquor store. He by chance has an an issue with my alcohol in tow and says he will not drive me to where I need to go. I begin to get mad and throw together a few letters of the alphabet for him, he drives off spouting his spiel. I send him off using a salute we all know too well. But the good thing is that that salute can also be used to hail the next cab if used properly, so I killed two birds with one stone. I get into the cab and he has no issues with my alcohol and thats good for me, I finally get to go home. As I am being driven home I am thinking to myself, I am gonna get that cabbie fired, I am gonna call his company and ream them out. By the time I get home, after having the paid the cabbie a good chunk of change, I began to realize that I do not have the time to waste on all this S&*T. It also comes clear to me that I am carrying some tasty booze with me and that pouring a drink vs. picking up the phone is much more worth my time.

See we all have choices and we all have alternatives, also the people in any profession should be awarded for the most part their ability to exercise the same right. I also do not know what the cabbie values more his beliefs or the all mighty buck. But maybe at the end of the day he feels better about himself, maybe not. One day he may also be faced with the fact that everyone in town carries booze and that he will need to move onto another profession. In that scenario the market would sort him out, either he sinks or swims, but we all had a choice in the matter.

[betsy]

I do not fault the raped woman for being upset. She's just been through a very traumatic experience...therefore she may see things quite differently, and lashing out could be the result of this trauma.

[betsy]

Sure, and I'll bet people in other professions have their own convictions as well. Imagine a vegetarian working at McDonald's who refused to serve customers hamburgers because they contain meat. I wonder how long that person would keep their job for. Or a Muslim taxi driver who refused to carry passengers with alcohol because it goes against his religious beliefs. I'm sure you'd agree with that 100% as well, right?

DOCTOR VS. BURGER GUY

Hmmmmmm........lets see a vegetarian serving burgers at mcdonalds, I would hazard a guess and say that they would have many workers who are vegetarian and still serving burgers. Now lets look a little bit deeper, a vegetarian is someone who by choice does not eat meat,

Some vegetarians say that they can't even stand the smell of cooking meat! When I go to McDonald's, I'll surely know a vegetarian employee when I see one, and I'll choose not to be served by him/her.

How can I tell? The mask. Dead give-away!

[cybercoma]

I'm appalled by your responses betsy. I find it disgusting that a woman would say that someone who has just been raped should be responsible for "shopping" around for a doctor, willing to give her the treatment she needs.

Let me ask you this then... If you were raped, would you allow yourself to become pregnant, carry the child, then give birth to the rapist's child? If you agree with the doctors decision and his belief, then you're saying that she should not prevent the pregnancy. You can't say the doctor is right, then say "but there has to be other doctors around to do it." Those other doctors would then be wrong. You're saying you agree with the doctor's decision that it is wrong to prescribe the morning after pill. You're saying that after being raped (let's up the ante and say it was by a relative, a father, uncle, grandfather) you would carry that child.

I highly doubt it.

And kimmy's example of the JW is spot on. What if you were in an accident and rushed to an ER, only to have the doctor sit there and pray for you, instead of giving you the life saving transfusion. It'd be real great for someone on staff to say, "well there's a doctor in the next county over who will give you a transfusion, but you won't survive the transport. I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do."

I can't even think straight I'm so appalled by your answers. I can't believe you think a traumatized woman, violated in the worst way, should be made to shop around for a doctor to care for her. Disgusting.

And SULLY, you can have your opinions, and I'm equally entitled to think your opinions are offensive and asinine.

[Sully]

I'm appalled by your responses betsy.......

And SULLY, you can have your opinions, and I'm equally entitled to think your opinions are offensive and asinine.

You were appalled with all of Besty's responses, were you so appalled that your day has been ruined by Betsy's opinons. Hardly, what you are really appalled at, is that fact that Betsy's has her own mind which she uses and she does not in anyway get swayed by your opinions.

As for my asinine opinions, well at least they are backed by a lot more logic than yours. Your responses all are based on emotion. As I stated in my previous post, I am for abortion in this case, but not for forcing a doctor with strong beliefs against to act against his will.

[cybercoma]

Should a doctor NEVER be made to do something against their beliefs? What if it's a Jehova's Witness doctor, that refuses to give a blood transfusion and the patient dies?

Do you respect that doctor's beliefs?

[gc1765]

Now lets compare again the doctor who performs thousands of tasks with the particular issue of this thread which represents about 0.001% of his potential duties as a doctor

Now lets MCbring into this comparison the burger flipper, they flip burgers and clean up the restaurant a little. So 95% of their time is devoted to serving burgers. If they knowingly refuse to, fire them because they are refusing to do what their jobs asks of them.

If you were an employer, and your employee refused to do part of their job, even if it was a small percetage of their total duties, would you fire this person? Or would you be Ok with it? Where would you draw the line?

Another great thing is that the fired worker can go work elsewhere (thank god for such a democratic notion).

A fired doctor can find work elsewhere too.

I do not know of anywhere in his contract as a doctor that states that this doctor MUST provide her the drug.

I do not know of anywhere in the person who works at McDonald's contract that it states the person MUST serve hamburgers.

I hail a cab with after coming out of the liquor store. He by chance has an an issue with my alcohol in tow and says he will not drive me to where I need to go. I begin to get mad and throw together a few letters of the alphabet for him, he drives off spouting his spiel. I send him off using a salute we all know too well. But the good thing is that that salute can also be used to hail the next cab if used properly, so I killed two birds with one stone. I get into the cab and he has no issues with my alcohol and thats good for me, I finally get to go home. As I am being driven home I am thinking to myself, I am gonna get that cabbie fired, I am gonna call his company and ream them out. By the time I get home, after having the paid the cabbie a good chunk of change, I began to realize that I do not have the time to waste on all this S&*T. It also comes clear to me that I am carrying some tasty booze with me and that pouring a drink vs. picking up the phone is much more worth my time.

Ok, so if you were this woman you'd be pretty pissed of at the doctor too, right? You'd give the finger to this doctor just like you would to the cabbie? Earlier you said you agree 100% with the doctor's actions...does that mean you agree 100% with the cabbie's (the one who refused to take you & your alcohol) actions as well?

[betsy]

Should a doctor NEVER be made to do something against their beliefs? What if it's a Jehova's Witness doctor, that refuses to give a blood transfusion and the patient dies?

Do you respect that doctor's beliefs?

My own personal beliefs does not enter into this. Whether I respect the doctor's beliefs or not does not matter. My feelings cannot change the facts. I am only stating what is clearly there. The law recognizes the healthworkers' freedom of religion, and at the same time it also recognizes the rights of patients!

What I've stated is not based on hunches, or assumptions...or "what-ifs".

Like Sully says, you are arguing with your emotions! You strongly diasgree. Well you can have your indignation and be appalled by our sensible responses, and scream, protest, and have your bloody fit!

But the fact still remains....the law of Pennsylvania does not agree with you.

You can try to change things if you feel so strongly. Challenge it in court!

[kimmy]

I don't think it's a matter of hiding information.

Perhaps knowing that he works in a hospital, and perhaps knowing that it is part of the job of the rape counsellor to provide the necessary information to all rape victims admitted to that hospital....he knows that the woman was already informed by the counselllor - and she was duly informed indeed.

For all we know, this rape counselllor is the equivalent of your "patient advocate"......someone who is not hampered by any religious belief.

In order to accomodate the religious freedom of health workers, and at the same time protect the rights of patients...I think it only practical to assume that any hospitals wanting to avoid any costly lawsuits and controversies would do everything possible to follow the law and protocol.

The information you linked to is not a law or protocol, it's Ascension Health's (the Good Samaritan Hospital's parent organization) opinion about its moral and legal obligations in treating rape victims.

And even this Catholic organization recognizes a moral obligation to provide adequate information regarding patient options.

While you apparently believe that the rape counselling these patients received was provided by the hospital, I see no evidence of that. A 20 year old rape victim also treated by Dr Gish had to go to a different city to obtain the treatment ( http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566 ). Does it really sounds like she had an advocate acting on her behalf?

Nothing at all in the story indicates that the hospital provided rape counselling. The law that was proposed in response to Doctor Gish's actions contains a clause that will require hospitals to provide counselling services, but at present it's not required:

THE BILL:

Requires all hospitals to tell rape victims about emergency contraception, and provide them with state-approved literature

Requires hospitals to provide emergency contraception if the victim requests it

Requires hospitals to offer a rape counselor, and give the victim a chance to consult with the counselor at the hospital

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_6194524

Partly as a result of publicity that resulted from Dr Gish refusing to provide emergency contraception to a rape victim, there's now a bill before the Pennsylvania legislature that will require hospitals to do both of these things.

So in that sense, yeah, good for Dr Gish for making a fight out of this. He exposed an important issue and got the lawmakers to take decisive action.

I don't think this incident with Dr Gish resulted in any new bill for Pennsylvania. If I'm not mistaken, this incident with Gish happened only recently. There was a case however in 1989 BROWNFIELD vs FREEMAN Hospital that might have been responsible for some changes.

While it was not this particular incident that brought the issue to the lawmakers, Dr Gish was at the center of an incident last year that did:

The bill is awaiting a vote almost a year after an emergency-room physician at Lebanon’s Good Samaritan Hospital failed to inform a 20-year-old rape victim about emergency contraception. Dr. Martin Gish, a Mennonite, later said he has a problem with the medication, and the woman drove to Reading to get it.

http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566

That's why I've said, Gish knows his religious rights are protected under the Conscience Clause (because of a previous court ruling - Brownfield v Freeman Hosp(?))....AND most probably knows the hospital had already taken steps to ensure that the law is followed....that's why Gish was confident enough to flatly cite religion as his reason.

The Brownfield v Freeman Hospital case was in California, not Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania doesn't actually have a law currently (but might by next week).

-k

[betsy]

The information you linked to is not a law or protocol, it's Ascension Health's (the Good Samaritan Hospital's parent organization) opinion about its moral and legal obligations in treating rape victims.

And even this Catholic organization recognizes a moral obligation to provide adequate information regarding patient options.

Yes, it's from Ascension Health. Nevertheless, there is such a thing as a CONSCIENCE CLAUSE recognized by law.

"Conscience clauses are clauses in laws in some parts of the United States which permit pharmacists, physicians, and other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. Those who choose not to provide services may not be disciplined or discriminated against. The provision is most frequently enacted in connection with issues relating to reproduction, such as abortion, sterilization, and contraception, but may include any phase of patient care.

Conscience clauses have been adopted by a number of U.S. states. including Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. See also "[1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_Clause_(medical)

"STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF

As of JUNE 1, 2007

BACKGROUND: Almost every state has a policy explicitly allowing some health care professionals or certain institutions to refuse to provide or participate in abortion, contraceptive services or sterilization services.

Even in states without explicit refusal statutes, an individual health care professional’s actions may be legally protected by statutes prohibiting discrimination against employees, based on their religious objections.

While some of the institutional policies are limited to private, or even religious, health care institutions, others apply to all institutions providing health care. (At the federal level, health care institutions and providers may refuse to participate in abortion services on the basis of their religious or moral beliefs.)

A few states have enacted laws that specifically allow pharmacists or pharmacies to refuse to provide health care due to religious or moral objections. Several other states have broadly worded refusal clause statutes that might protect pharmacists or pharmacies from liability for their refusal. (See Emergency Contraception.)

HIGHLIGHTS:

46 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services.

All of these states permit individual health care providers to refuse to provide abortion services.

43 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide abortion services, 15 limit the exemption to private health care institutions and 1 state allows only religious health care entities to refuse to provide such care.

13 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception.

8 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception

4 states explicitly permit pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives. (4 additional states have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically include pharmacists, but may apply to them.)

1 state explicitly permit pharmacies to refuse to dispense contraceptives.

4 states have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically include pharmacies, but may apply to them.

9 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide services related to contraception, 6 states limit the exemption to private entities.

17 states allow some health care providers to refuse to provide sterilization services.

16 states allow individual health care providers to refuse to provide sterilization services.

15 states allow health care institutions to refuse to provide sterilization services; 4 limit the exemption to private entities. "

Note: taken from Guttmacher Institute

While you apparently believe that the rape counselling these patients received was provided by the hospital, I see no evidence of that. A 20 year old rape victim also treated by Dr Gish had to go to a different city to obtain the treatment ( http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566 ). Does it really sounds like she had an advocate acting on her behalf?

Nothing at all in the story indicates that the hospital provided rape counselling.

I was raising the high possibility that the rape counsellor is a hospital staff, basing it from what I can deduce from the article. The way the article was written indicate the possibility. And the fact that the first place a rape victim would be most likely to go would be at an emergency hospital or medical facility...before she goes searching for a rape counsellor!

You on the other hand think of the other possibility, that she went to the rape counsellor first...who then adviced her to go to the hospital and have herself treated. I see no evidence supporting your theory either.

Which of these two assumptions (yours or mine) do you think is the most likely and practical and realistic scenario....unless the raped victim was so traumatized that she was not thinking sensibly?

Just to be clear, if you were taking a practical test, and the question is this:

You were just raped. What is the practical first step you have to do?

a. Go to the emergency hospital

b. Look for a rape counsellor

c. Take a shower

Which one do you think is the best answer? The one that lawyers and cops always advice you to do - keeping in mind about preservation of physical evidence(s) should you seek to file criminal charges???

The rape counsellors are usually in medical facilities!

That the 20 year old victim had to go to another place to obtain the treatment, it does not mean she did not get the required information from the hospital where Gish works. In fact, it only supports my theory and that this could be normal protocol procedures since this recently raped woman was assisted by the rape counsellor in finding a doctor that would provide the pills! Although she had to go to another doctor to get the pills, who gave her the information about the existence of such pills, and the name of a willing doctor??

The rape counsellor!

The law that was proposed in response to Doctor Gish's actions contains a clause that will require hospitals to provide counselling services, but at present it's not required:

THE BILL:

Requires all hospitals to tell rape victims about emergency contraception, and provide them with state-approved literature

Requires hospitals to provide emergency contraception if the victim requests it

Requires hospitals to offer a rape counselor, and give the victim a chance to consult with the counselor at the hospital

Check the States Policies In Brief above. And see the date on it.

While it was not this particular incident that brought the issue to the lawmakers, Dr Gish was at the center of an incident last year that did:

The bill is awaiting a vote almost a year after an emergency-room physician at Lebanon’s Good Samaritan Hospital failed to inform a 20-year-old rape victim about emergency contraception. Dr. Martin Gish, a Mennonite, later said he has a problem with the medication, and the woman drove to Reading to get it.

http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566

Which only support what I've observed before: Gish seem too confident in boldly citing religion....which in this day and age is surely like waving a red flag to a bull.

The Brownfield v Freeman Hospital case was in California, not Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania doesn't actually have a law currently (but might by next week).

-k

I made a mistake in that score. However, it doesn't change anything from my argument...or the facts cited regarding Conscience Clause.

[betsy]

While you apparently believe that the rape counselling these patients received was provided by the hospital, I see no evidence of that. A 20 year old rape victim also treated by Dr Gish had to go to a different city to obtain the treatment ( http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566 ). Does it really sounds like she had an advocate acting on her behalf?

Nothing at all in the story indicates that the hospital provided rape counselling.

I was raising the high possibility that the rape counsellor is a hospital staff, basing it from what I can deduce from the article. The way the article was written indicate the possibility. And the fact that the first place a rape victim would be most likely to go would be at an emergency hospital or medical facility...before she goes searching for a rape counsellor!

You on the other hand think of the other possibility, that she went to the rape counsellor first...who then adviced her to go to the hospital and have herself treated. I see no evidence supporting your theory either.

Which of these two assumptions (yours or mine) do you think is the most likely and practical and realistic scenario....unless the raped victim was so traumatized that she was not thinking sensibly?

Just to be clear, if you were taking a practical test, and the question is this:

You were just raped. What is the practical first step you have to do?

a. Go to the emergency hospital

b. Look for a rape counsellor

c. Take a shower

Which one do you think is the best answer? The one that lawyers and cops always advice you to do - keeping in mind about preservation of physical evidence(s) should you seek to file criminal charges???

The rape counsellors are usually in medical facilities!

That the 20 year old victim had to go to another place to obtain the treatment, it does not mean she did not get the required information from the hospital where Gish works. In fact, it only supports my theory and that this could be normal protocol procedures since this recently raped woman was assisted by the rape counsellor in finding a doctor that would provide the pills! Although she had to go to another doctor to get the pills, who gave her the information about the existence of such pills, and the name of a willing doctor??

The rape counsellor!

Anyway, here's a source that gives support to my statement that counsellors are usually in medical facilities.

SERVICES OFFERED BY RVA

Advocacy

The Rape Victim Advocates medical advocacy program currently works with 16 Chicago-area hospitals. Our medical advocacy services are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at the Emergency Rooms of one of these 16 hospitals. When a sexual assault survivor arrives at one of our contracted hospitals, the hospital pages an advocate to assist this survivor while he or she is in the ER. The advocate provides emotional support, medical and legal information, referrals and initial follow-up services to survivors and their significant others. If the survivor requests additional follow-up services, a staff advocate can provide more long-term medical and legal advocacy.

http://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/services.html

[Sully]

Should a doctor NEVER be made to do something against their beliefs? What if it's a Jehova's Witness doctor, that refuses to give a blood transfusion and the patient dies?

Do you respect that doctor's beliefs?

What IF.......What IF.......What IF. Well even tho the two situations are different in very different in nature, I will still reply.

Two people are rushed into the emergeny room, one who has been hurt in a car accident and another is a woman who has been been raped. The physical injuries to the car accident victim are what people in the health care industry would call "LIFE THREATENING". The other would be an incident where people would be angered and saddened that a woman was raped, but it most cases rape DOES NOT EQUAL "LIFE THREATENING" but rather severe TRAUMATIZATION. WHO SHOULD BE TREATED FIRST????? No one wants a woman to be raped, if it happened to my family or my girlfriend, I would absolutely go frickin bananas and love to get a hold of the culprit, TRUST ME!!!

So we have classified two completely distinct situations, one we will call apples and the other oranges. If a doctor would not give a blood transfusion which is a potential life saving action, then yes he should be fired, the severity of his actions have IMMEDIATELY AND SEVERELY lessened the chance of saving the patient. The other situation was not an immediate risk of life to the mother and AGAIN there were alternative options available to the woman. An unconcious car accident victim cannot get up and choose another doctor. (PS if I were in that situation I would be majorly pissed at that doctor for not giving the pill, but also after him not being helpful, I would walk around him and speak to someone who could help)

And again lets imagine a man who studied to perform abortions, who chose to accept employment at an abortion clinic and then say as the procedure is about to begin "NO WAY JOSE"

So you show me an article thats shows a JW doctor refusing to perform a blood transfusion and I ll show you a crow with a white ass!!!!

[kimmy]

While you apparently believe that the rape counselling these patients received was provided by the hospital, I see no evidence of that. A 20 year old rape victim also treated by Dr Gish had to go to a different city to obtain the treatment ( http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_6224566 ). Does it really sounds like she had an advocate acting on her behalf?

Nothing at all in the story indicates that the hospital provided rape counselling.

I was raising the high possibility that the rape counsellor is a hospital staff, basing it from what I can deduce from the article. The way the article was written indicate the possibility. And the fact that the first place a rape victim would be most likely to go would be at an emergency hospital or medical facility...before she goes searching for a rape counsellor!

Of course.

You on the other hand think of the other possibility, that she went to the rape counsellor first...who then adviced her to go to the hospital and have herself treated. I see no evidence supporting your theory either.

Which of these two assumptions (yours or mine) do you think is the most likely and practical and realistic scenario....unless the raped victim was so traumatized that she was not thinking sensibly?

Where on earth did you get the idea that I think she went to the rape counsellor first?

The article indicated that Ms Boyer saw a rape counsellor later that day.

Just to be clear, if you were taking a practical test, and the question is this:

You were just raped. What is the practical first step you have to do?

a. Go to the emergency hospital

b. Look for a rape counsellor

c. Take a shower

Which one do you think is the best answer? The one that lawyers and cops always advice you to do - keeping in mind about preservation of physical evidence(s) should you seek to file criminal charges???

The rape counsellors are usually in medical facilities!

Absolutely. You are making an excellent argument as to why all hospitals should have rape counselling services available.

None of which actually supports your claim that the hospital provided any counselling. In fact, here's proof that the hospital doesn't, from the hospital's own mouth:

http://www.gshleb.org/community.cfm?id=506

They're excited to announce their new and improved services for sexual assault victims. Victims no longer have to deal with an asshole like Dr Gish, thanks to specially trained nurses who will now conduct the exam, interview, and collect evidence. As well, if rape victims request counselling, the hospital will request the Sexual Assault Resource Counselling Center to send one.

This is a new policy. This was announced 10 days ago. And the hospital still doesn't have it's own rape counsellors, it requests one from an external agency.

(what a coincidence. Just as the compassionate care bill is approaching a vote and generating a wave of negative publicity for the hospital about the shitty way in which these women were treated, the hospital announces their exciting new policy that they're not going to treat future rape victims shitty anymore. Guess we know what it takes to get an institution to fix its act.)

That the 20 year old victim had to go to another place to obtain the treatment, it does not mean she did not get the required information from the hospital where Gish works. In fact, it only supports my theory and that this could be normal protocol procedures since this recently raped woman was assisted by the rape counsellor in finding a doctor that would provide the pills! Although she had to go to another doctor to get the pills, who gave her the information about the existence of such pills, and the name of a willing doctor??

The rape counsellor!

Ms Boyer spoke to a rape counsellor (one not provided by the hospital, as we've already discussed.) The 20 year old victim also mentioned in the story, the one who first came forward to bring this publicity to the hospital, was never offered rape counselling or provided with information about emergency contraception.

Proof:

http://www.pacare.org/media.php/9

The mother does not dispute the doctor's claim that her daughter never requested the medication.

"In all of our distress we never thought about it," she said, adding it was her sister who suggested the idea the next morning.

The mother said the rapist wore a condom, but they wanted to take added precautions. So she contacted Dr. Martin Gish, who had treated the victim the day before at the hospital.

She went for the rape exam, the doctor provided her with no information at all, she went back home, tells her family what happened the next day, her *sister* suggests the morning after pill, she goes back to the hospital to request it, the doctor says no, and *then* she's off to another town to obtain treatment.

So that puts an end to your theory that the hospital provided counselling.

Check the States Policies In Brief above. And see the date on it.

So what? The law says Gish didn't have to provide her with an abortion.

I've never suggested that Gish broke the *law*. What I've argued is that Gish willfully failed his responsibilities as a doctor, and that the hospital failed to provide appropriate treatment.

The doctor hid information concerning treatment from his patient. That's a gross failure of a physician's responsibilities. Nobody else at the hospital provided her with adequate information either. So the hospital also failed the patient.

The patient left the hospital without knowing what medical options she had, and didn't know about the option of emergency contraception until her sister suggested it the next day.

While it was not this particular incident that brought the issue to the lawmakers, Dr Gish was at the center of an incident last year that did:

Which only support what I've observed before: Gish seem too confident in boldly citing religion....which in this day and age is surely like waving a red flag to a bull.

The doctor's employer doesn't let him talk to the media anymore. The incident has generated such negative publicity for the hospital that they've announced a new policy to proudly proclaim that they're doing things different now. The hospital spent "thousands of dollars" training nurses to treat rape victims so that Dr Gish doesn't. And outrage over what Dr Gish did prompted the a new law that's going to make sure that how Dr Gish dealt with these women can't happen to future rape victims.

So I'd say that the bull ran his ass over, figuratively speaking.

-k

[betsy]

Absolutely. You are making an excellent argument as to why all hospitals should have rape counselling services available.

And I think it is a good idea to have rape counselling services available.

None of which actually supports your claim that the hospital provided any counselling. In fact, here's proof that the hospital doesn't, from the hospital's own mouth:

http://www.gshleb.org/community.cfm?id=506

Like I've said, I was only relying on the article that was provided. At least this latest article you've given irons that wrinkle out.

They're excited to announce their new and improved services for sexual assault victims. Victims no longer have to deal with an asshole like Dr Gish,

"Assholes" will be assholes. And I speak generally. I don't think any profession is immuned from having them.

(what a coincidence. Just as the compassionate care bill is approaching a vote and generating a wave of negative publicity for the hospital about the shitty way in which these women were treated, the hospital announces their exciting new policy that they're not going to treat future rape victims shitty anymore. Guess we know what it takes to get an institution to fix its act.)

Like I've said to Cybercoma: if one feels so strongly about it, bring it to court. Have it legislated.

It's not about whether we agree with it or not, or whether we practice the same belief.

The law -Conscience Clause - so far, gives doctors like Gish the right to refuse on religious ground.

That is just stating a simple fact.

The doctor's employer doesn't let him talk to the media anymore.

All we know of Gish is his profession, his religious belief regarding abortion, etc., and his two encounetrs with this women.

I don't know anything about his personality. Who knows, maybe he's one those loose canons. That's why I find it surprising that in this day and age, he would be so bold in citing religion - that I even interpreted it as being deliberately provocative. For him to deliberately seek that kind of heat only suggests (to me at least), that somehow he feels confident about his rights. For indeed, he could've as easily side-stepped the issue without compromising his belief....and at the same time be able to accomodate the patient. He seems short on diplomacy...and tact.

Mind you, let me be clear that I am basing that opinion on the said article you've provided. For in truth, I don't think there is anything explaining Gish's version of events.

The hospital spent "thousands of dollars" training nurses to treat rape victims so that Dr Gish doesn't.

I must've missed the part that says exactly that. Is Gish suspended then? And replaced by these nurses? Is he not allowed to treat rape victims at all?

And outrage over what Dr Gish did prompted the a new law that's going to make sure that how Dr Gish dealt with these women can't happen to future rape victims.

So I'd say that the bull ran his ass over, figuratively speaking.

Relying from that article, by the looks of it....indeed it did. It caused quite a stir anyway.

BUT is this "new law" already a law? Or are they still waiting for it to be approved or passed?

[kimmy]

(what a coincidence. Just as the compassionate care bill is approaching a vote and generating a wave of negative publicity for the hospital about the shitty way in which these women were treated, the hospital announces their exciting new policy that they're not going to treat future rape victims shitty anymore. Guess we know what it takes to get an institution to fix its act.)

Like I've said to Cybercoma: if one feels so strongly about it, bring it to court. Have it legislated.

It's not about whether we agree with it or not, or whether we practice the same belief.

The law -Conscience Clause - so far, gives doctors like Gish the right to refuse on religious ground.

That is just stating a simple fact.

I don't actually have a problem with the "conscience clause." What I do have a problem with is that not only did he refuse to provide the pill himself, he also flatly refused to refer her to anyone who would. I'm even more disgusted by the fact that the 20 year old was not provided, either by Dr Gish, or anybody else with the hospital, with adequate information.

A patient should be provided with complete and accurate information so that they can make informed decisions about their treatment. Even Ascension Health's discussion about the Brownfield vs Freeman Hospital case agrees with that.

Both Dr Gish and the Good Samaritan Hospital failed to do so.

Do you feel that these patients received adequate care? Do you feel that the hospital had lived up to its ethical responsibilities when the 20-year old left without having spoken to a counsellor and without having been provided with any information about emergency contraception?

The hospital spent "thousands of dollars" training nurses to treat rape victims so that Dr Gish doesn't.

I must've missed the part that says exactly that. Is Gish suspended then? And replaced by these nurses? Is he not allowed to treat rape victims at all?

The hospital's new policy states that the specially trained nurses will provide care for sexual assault victims, and that doctors will only be involved if treatment of physical injuries is required.

So yeah, basically, his interaction with rape victims in the future is going to be very limited. He certainly won't be the person providing them with information about counselling or medical options.

And outrage over what Dr Gish did prompted the a new law that's going to make sure that how Dr Gish dealt with these women can't happen to future rape victims.

So I'd say that the bull ran his ass over, figuratively speaking.

Relying from that article, by the looks of it....indeed it did. It caused quite a stir anyway.

BUT is this "new law" already a law? Or are they still waiting for it to be approved or passed?

From what I read, it could be voted on as soon as next week, and appears to have support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

-k

[cybercoma]

Thank-you kimmy for providing further information on this case. I'm happy to see the hospital and the government have taken steps to ensure that patients will be handled with more sensitivity in the future.

[betsy]

I don't actually have a problem with the "conscience clause." What I do have a problem with is that not only did he refuse to provide the pill himself, he also flatly refused to refer her to anyone who would. I'm even more disgusted by the fact that the 20 year old was not provided, either by Dr Gish, or anybody else with the hospital, with adequate information.

A patient should be provided with complete and accurate information so that they can make informed decisions about their treatment. Even Ascension Health's discussion about the Brownfield vs Freeman Hospital case agrees with that.

Both Dr Gish and the Good Samaritan Hospital failed to do so.

Since the facility is a hospital, I guess it falls on the hospital's responsibility to see to it that the rights of patients are not neglected, and at the same time the religious rights of healthworkers in that hospital are recognized - just as the law said it should.

Most especially that there had been a previous incident of the same nature. One would think that rectifying the problem would've been most practical...considering costly lawsuits and bad publicity.

Had there been a rape counsellor, or someone assigned to see to that job of giving accurate information, alternatives and referrals....Gish would not have found himself in this awful situation of having to defend himself and his belief.

Why should he have to defend his refusal based on religious ground? He has that right!

The Conscience Clause gave him that right!

I think it is unfair to both Gish and the women the way the hospital seemed to have been lax about this.

I do not find fault with Gish, based on the right that the law had given him. But I do find fault with the hospital. The hsopital failed to protect its employees - in this case, Gish - from having to deal with this situation, and it had failed to provide what the law says should be rightfully given to a patient.

If Gish had his own private practice, it falls on his shoulders to ensure that the rights of his patients are respected, and that his clinic fully abide by the law. If he has to hire someone to assume the responsibility of a rape counsellor, complete with providing medical information, alternatives and referrals... he should. That's what the law dictates.

[cybercoma]

When a doctor says, "I believe X so I cannot treat you." They should have to justify their belief in X, not hide behind their freedom to believe in something they cannot support with evidence or reason.

[betsy]

When a doctor says, "I believe X so I cannot treat you." They should have to justify their belief in X, not hide behind their freedom to believe in something they cannot support with evidence or reason.

Why do we have to provide justification for a right that we have?

Should blacks have to justify why they have the right to be treated equally as any other citizens in a democratic society?

A right is a right! Evidence or not, superstitions or not, by citing religious belief is justification enough, in Gish's case!

[cybercoma]

Religious belief doesn't and shouldn't offer a person complete freedom to do whatever the hell they please, for example, killing abortion doctors, destroying labs doing stem cell research and allowing children to die because you refuse to allow them blood transfusions.

Or in this case, dealing with rape victims and not telling them all of their options.

[CLRV]

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

I don't think I would want a doctor working on me who didn't base his treatment on personal beliefs and ethics.

A doctor is not a teacher; not a postal worker; not even a cop. A doctor is a special class of individual because they have the power of life and death. That's not their job. It's not their business. It's their *duty* and it's a heavy one. Those doctors who do not take that seriously are valueless as physicians and possibly dangerous as well. Take, for example, the overpaid butcher who mutilated Michael Jackson, albeit at his own request. Does anybody think he has any personal beliefs, religious or otherwise?

If a certain doctor's interpretation of the Oath's primary admonition to "Do No Harm" includes hours-old zygotes, that has to be the doctor's right. Nor must he/she be compelled to give a referral for such a procedure, since that would still be participation in the act.

At such a point, confronted with a rape victim, it becomes the hospital administation's responsibility to provide the referral. In the unlikely event that a public hospital doesn't have any other physicians on hand willing to perform the procedure, even the smallest of towns has a women's centre or clinic where honest and dedicated people work very hard from *their* personal beliefs to provide just such a referral. In fact, dealing with such an agency would undoubtedly be less traumatic for the rape victim than any emergency ward full of male doctors. I don't know the end of the story that's been told here, but I doubt the victim was denied her treatment in the end.

I'm afraid this is one of those freedoms that has to be absolute to be worth anything. Any talk of compelling physicians to perform procedures against their personal beliefs is dangerous talk and has huge ramifications. It's not a precedent we want to set.

And don't anybody be dissing Jehovah's Witness docs, either. I actually had one and he was the best physician I have ever had. I've never before or since found a doctor that treats the mind, body and spirit the way he did. I once asked him about the transfusion thing and he told me that was largely a stereotype. He promised me he wouldn't let me die of blood loss.

[Moxie]

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

I don't think I would want a doctor working on me who didn't base his treatment on personal beliefs and ethics.

A doctor is not a teacher; not a postal worker; not even a cop. A doctor is a special class of individual because they have the power of life and death. That's not their job. It's not their business. It's their *duty* and it's a heavy one. Those doctors who do not take that seriously are valueless as physicians and possibly dangerous as well. Take, for example, the overpaid butcher who mutilated Michael Jackson, albeit at his own request. Does anybody think he has any personal beliefs, religious or otherwise?

If a certain doctor's interpretation of the Oath's primary admonition to "Do No Harm" includes hours-old zygotes, that has to be the doctor's right. Nor must he/she be compelled to give a referral for such a procedure, since that would still be participation in the act.

At such a point, confronted with a rape victim, it becomes the hospital administation's responsibility to provide the referral. In the unlikely event that a public hospital doesn't have any other physicians on hand willing to perform the procedure, even the smallest of towns has a women's centre or clinic where honest and dedicated people work very hard from *their* personal beliefs to provide just such a referral. In fact, dealing with such an agency would undoubtedly be less traumatic for the rape victim than any emergency ward full of male doctors. I don't know the end of the story that's been told here, but I doubt the victim was denied her treatment in the end.

I'm afraid this is one of those freedoms that has to be absolute to be worth anything. Any talk of compelling physicians to perform procedures against their personal beliefs is dangerous talk and has huge ramifications. It's not a precedent we want to set.

And don't anybody be dissing Jehovah's Witness docs, either. I actually had one and he was the best physician I have ever had. I've never before or since found a doctor that treats the mind, body and spirit the way he did. I once asked him about the transfusion thing and he told me that was largely a stereotype. He promised me he wouldn't let me die of blood loss.

I heartly disagree with the bolded text, their was no "Precedure" a pill is not a "Precedure". IT's called medication. As for his beliefs, or lack their of hog wash. He's a doctor not a priest or pastor, he has no business using his trusted position of being a Doctor to pass judgement. If he can't do his job in a hospital setting without passing judgement he should be fired. He can go into private practice and pass judgement to the cows come home. This issue has nothing to do with lax Administration, it's a narrow minded man who treated his patients with total callousness and cold disregard and he's using his religious beliefs as an excuse.

I'm catholic, I don't believe in abortion but I believe in a woman's right to choose. I don't believe in assisted sucide but I believe in a persons right to choose. What right do I have to force my "Personal" beliefs down societies throat. It's another example of excusing the inexcusable by the socialist namby pamby crowd. This total tolerance of anyone else's beliefs, is more manure to heap on the compost of society. You see that dogma causes the innocents of society to suffer because the left/left pander to a minority. Simply if you can't do the job because of "Personal Ethos" don't accept the job. It's not rocket science, it's called "Common Sense" something the left/left have none of.

[Moxie]

Here are a few articles on the true victims of the myth of Mulitculture, because of the socialist and the left these women must suffer. Their tolerance of barbaric cultural practices is the reason these problems continue. Articles:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/06/...sers-admit.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287393,00.html

This is typical of the left/left they are blaming "Global Warming" on the increase in rapes but no mention of Islam's Culture of "Male" entitlement. Yep it's not the males fault, the socialist love Global Warming it gives them an excuse to excuse the inexcusable.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2223

[betsy]

Religious belief doesn't and shouldn't offer a person complete freedom to do whatever the hell they please, for example, killing abortion doctors, destroying labs doing stem cell research and allowing children to die because you refuse to allow them blood transfusions.

Or in this case, dealing with rape victims and not telling them all of their options.

Beliefs of any kinds (whether they be from religion, atheists, agnostics or whatever), morals of any kind (whether they be from religion, atheists, agnostics or whatever), doesn't and shouldn't offer a person complete freedom to do whatever the hell they please that goes against the law.

That includes vandalism for example, the anti-poverty protesters taking over the office of a government official in BC, or endangering the lives of others for example Green Peace against the whale hunters. But that's another topic.

We're talking about the Conscience Clause regarding religious belief in healthcare and patients' rights.

Unless the law says otherwise, I guess we'll just have to learn to accept that healthcare workers do have the right to refuse on the grounds of religious belief.

As a suggestion, perhaps patients who do not believe or agree with the values and beliefs of a religious order - in this case, the CATHOLIC Religion- should CHOOSE to avoid going to a Catholic Hospital.

And perhaps hospitals should specify clearly and exactly what they are (Catholics, Non-religious, Moral relativists), so there can be no misunderstanding whatsoever.

Heavens, hospitals should avoid getting sued for false advertisement or mis-representation!

Here, sign on the dotted line, acknowledging that you know that this is a Catholic Hospital and here is the list of what we do not do in this facility. Enter at your own risk!

[betsy]

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

I don't think I would want a doctor working on me who didn't base his treatment on personal beliefs and ethics.

Me too!

Heaven forbid I might end up loosing a kidney to some doctors who believes it's immoral for me to have two healthy kidneys (while people are dying on a long waiting list), and that I therefore, should share! Or because some rich guys handed him some cash under the table!

Or worse, a doctor whose values, ethics and morals shifts like a pendulum at whim, deciding that it is for the better that I be euthanized, with or without my permission.

I'd choose a doctor who takes seriously the oath of 'Do No Harm" and "Saving Lives" - all the more when a doctor is prepared to stand before the courts defending what he regards a human life (such as the fetus) even though society had chosen to revoke this status and re-defined the fetus to nothing more than just a thing.