.

[gc1765]

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.

Don't be silly, doctors still have to obey the law.

[betsy]

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.

Don't be silly, doctors still have to obey the law.

The law????

Why, some posters here would rather Dr Gish not practice his right - that was given by the law!

So now, you're talking about the law??

Anyway, with this Conscience Clause, do you now agree that doctors have the right to refuse based on religious grounds? Answer this question and we're back discussing...otherwise, we're through on this thread.

[gc1765]

The law????

Why, some posters here would rather Dr Gish not practice his right - that was given by the law!

So now, you're talking about the law??

Anyway, with this Conscience Clause, do you now agree that doctors have the right to refuse based on religious grounds? Answer this question and we're back discussing...otherwise, we're through on this thread.

Is Dr. Gish breaking the law by refusing to prescribe morning after pills? No.

Is a doctor breaking the law by stealing one of your kidneys? Yes.

See the difference?

In answer to your question, no I don't think they should have the right to refuse...just as you don't think cabbies should have the right to refuse passengers with alcohol.

[betsy]

The law????

Why, some posters here would rather Dr Gish not practice his right - that was given by the law!

So now, you're talking about the law??

Anyway, with this Conscience Clause, do you now agree that doctors have the right to refuse based on religious grounds? Answer this question and we're back discussing...otherwise, we're through on this thread.

Is Dr. Gish breaking the law by refusing to prescribe morning after pills? No.

Is a doctor breaking the law by stealing one of your kidneys? Yes.

See the difference?

Yes I do see the difference. The difference that some refuse to acknowledge and respect a right given by the law, and yet would demand that the law be respected and followed!

See the contradiction?

In answer to your question, no I don't think they should have the right to refuse...just as you don't think cabbies should have the right to refuse passengers with alcohol.

You are not answering my question. I am not asking what you think should be.

I am asking, now that you know about the Conscience Clause, do you now agree that the doctors indeed have the right to refuse on the basis of religious belief?

[gc1765]

Yes I do see the difference. The difference that some refuse to acknowledge and respect a right given by the law, and yet would demand that the law be respected and followed!

See the contradiction?

I am arguing what the law should be. I suppose you could argue that it should be legal to steal someone's kidney and sell it for money, but I certainly wouldn't make such an argument.

You are not answering my question. I am not asking what you think should be.

I am asking, now that you know about the Conscience Clause, do you now agree that the doctors indeed have the right to refuse on the basis of religious belief?

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not here to argue what the law is, but rather to give my opinion as to what it should be. I think you already know what my opinion is on the matter.

[Sully]

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not here to argue what the law is, but rather to give my opinion as to what it should be. I think you already know what my opinion is on the matter.

Like you I believe in abortion in this case because of the circumstances.

I believe that the doctor potentially handled the issue with a lack of sensitivity.

I believe that a lot can be learned from the situation and that a new policy outlining procedures and listing of available doctors to prescribe the drug can be implemented.

Where we differ is in the following:

I am not for having goverment introduce legislation that begins to infringe upon peoples religious beliefs, in fact employers cannot descriminate against enthnicity, sex, religious beliefs, etc...... and its seems without a doubt that you are wanting to overturn this. Scary thought, just more and more steps to a society we all do not want in to live in. Also Cyber, just remember this kind of legislation could one day come back to bite you, especially if your employer could fire you on the grounds above, that once protected you. One day you will be old and you may just find yourself obsolete and not able to hold a job.

[cybercoma]

what do I have to do with what gc said?

[Sully]

what do I have to do with what gc said?

I apologize Cybercoma, I was reading your post and posting at the same time and it was directed at GC for the most part but definitely fits into our discussion as well.

[gc1765]

Where we differ is in the following:

I am not for having goverment introduce legislation that begins to infringe upon peoples religious beliefs, in fact employers cannot descriminate against enthnicity, sex, religious beliefs, etc...... and its seems without a doubt that you are wanting to overturn this.

Only if it interferes with their ability to do their job. I could claim that working hard is against my religion, but employers can't discriminate against me because that is my religion, so employers should have to hire me even if I refuse to work hard? Is that what you are saying?

Employers discriminate based on these things all the time. How many atheists get hired as priests? Perhaps I should apply for the position, then I can preach atheism and say "you can't fire me just because of my religious beliefs!".

Scary thought, just more and more steps to a society we all do not want in to live in. Also Cyber, just remember this kind of legislation could one day come back to bite you, especially if your employer could fire you on the grounds above, that once protected you. One day you will be old and you may just find yourself obsolete and not able to hold a job.

If I don't do my job, I would expect my employer to fire me.

[Sully]

Only if it interferes with their ability to do their job. I could claim that working hard is against my religion, but employers can't discriminate against me because that is my religion, so employers should have to hire me even if I refuse to work hard? Is that what you are saying?

Employers discriminate based on these things all the time. How many atheists get hired as priests? Perhaps I should apply for the position, then I can preach atheism and say "you can't fire me just because of my religious beliefs!".

If I don't do my job, I would expect my employer to fire me.

Well you are really onto something here GC ,again you show off your uncanny ability to draw worthwhile comparisons of real life situations. I am starting to see your way of thinking and it looks good from over here, hey anything goes right. And you are right most employers, when posting a job position, clearly state that they are looking for someone that is lazy.

Well GC here is a hint, if you do not want to be over worked and believe that laziness is part of your daily practice, I have a solution for you. Join a union (synonmous to a religion), there they do not want you to work too hard and its probably written in the CBA not to (synonmous to religious doctrine)

As for the Atheism analogy, BRAVO !!! HATS OFF TO YOU !!! I have no response to that other than "BRILLIANt, JUST BRILLIANT"

Ya but one thing to remember GC, after you were fired for being lazy, now you can worry about not being rehired because you are too old.

[betsy]

I think you already know what my opinion is on the matter.

So, even though the law recognizes and had granted Dr Gish his right to refuse on the grounds of religion, you still refuse to recognize and respect his right?

Am I correct in assuming that is your opinion on the matter?

[betsy]

Where we differ is in the following:

I am not for having goverment introduce legislation that begins to infringe upon peoples religious beliefs, in fact employers cannot descriminate against enthnicity, sex, religious beliefs, etc...... and its seems without a doubt that you are wanting to overturn this.

Only if it interferes with their ability to do their job. I could claim that working hard is against my religion, but employers can't discriminate against me because that is my religion, so employers should have to hire me even if I refuse to work hard?

No, they don't have to hire you. They can come up with other excuses why they would not hire you....but most likely they'd never even think of citing your religion as the reason why they won't. It's easier for them to lie or be tactful or diplomatic in turning you down. That is, if they don't want any hassles.

But there are some who don't mind the hassles, however. And it should give you pause and have you wonder why is that?

It is one very confident employer indeed - someone who probably wants to prove a point - that would tell you flat out that he won't hire you because of your religion.

And I'd bet this kind of employer would look forward to see you challenge him in court!

Perhaps, because he knows there is such provision in law that protects the employers and companies' interest since these employers and companies create jobs...and, after all, losing productivity will eventually affect the economy?

Usually, people who confidently give statements that come across as provocative, do so because they know something that gives them that confidence. In the case of Gish - that confidence came from the Conscience Clause - knowing he's got the right to refuse on the grounds of his religious belief.

[betsy]

How many atheists get hired as priests?

How many atheists actually apply as priests?

Perhaps I should apply for the position, then I can preach atheism and say "you can't fire me just because of my religious beliefs!".

Oh yes they can! On the grounds that obviously, you are not mentally fit to continue as a priest!

I can see it now. You're up on the pulpit, waving your hands up in the air, your eyes wild with fervor, screaming: There is no God!!!!

tsk-tsk they'll say, shaking their heads in compassion. "Nervous breakdown. The stress got to him."

And if you're lucky, they might even go for the Good Ol Samaritan routine and have you committed to a quality looney bin with the best of care. At their expense!

[Moxie]

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.

Don't be silly, doctors still have to obey the law.

The law????

Why, some posters here would rather Dr Gish not practice his right - that was given by the law!

So now, you're talking about the law??

Anyway, with this Conscience Clause, do you now agree that doctors have the right to refuse based on religious grounds? Answer this question and we're back discussing...otherwise, we're through on this thread.

Conscience clause, spare me the left/left hyperhole. By your own admission your so called JW doctor would not withhold a blood transfusion, so he/she was able to place his/her religion aside and treat you as a patient. You are really are coming across as a hypocrite on this issue. So you advocate a doctor using his religion as a reason not treat patients that don't meet his moral ethos. How narrow minded are you? Here's another example of what happens when a doctor places his religion above his responsiblity as a Doctor.

Article: and the link: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/20...your_docto.html

When Your Doctor is a Muslim: Medical Terrorism Comes to America

Printer Friendly

By Debbie Schlussel

Sometimes--so many times--diversity is not what it's cracked up to be.

Just ask Joseph Applebaum. Well, you could ask him. But you won't get an answer. He's dead. And he's dead because he was a Jew, and his doctor is a Muslim and grad of "Ayman Al-Zawahiri" Medical School.

But Applebaum wasn't denied treatment for being a Jew in Egypt. Or elsewhere in the Muslim world. It happened right here on U.S. soil. In Chicago.

As Muslim doctors continue to flood into the country under lax immigration laws, hospitals around the country have acquired their fair share of them. Many hospitals in the Detroit area are now dominated by Muslim doctors and have been for some time.

Joseph Applebaum, Z"L*: Muslim Doctor Refused to Treat Him, Let Him Die

But even in hospitals where they do not predominate, Muslim doctors are starting to demonstrate behavior toward non-Muslim patients that is beyond alarming.

On December 1, 2003, Joe Applebaum was admitted to Rush North Shore Medical Center, a major hospital in Chicago. He was stricken with an acute (or distended) abdomen--a swelling of the stomach that is easily diagnosed and treated. But it was never treated by anyone at the hospital. For 12 hours, Joe Applebaum was left alone--left to die, which he did the next day.

A Jewish man, he was identified as a Jew on the front page of his medical chart. The chief resident doctor assigned to treat Mr. Applebaum, Osama Ahmed Ibrahim, MD, sure noticed the religious notation on Applebaum's chart. And it appears that this is why he never once checked or examined this emergency patient, Mr. Applebaum, and left him to die. When another doctor at the hospital finally examined Mr. Applebaum--not his assigned doctor, Dr. Ibrahim, he told Applebaum's son, Michael, to say good-bye to his father because he was about to die.

Dr. Ibrahim, is a Muslim from Birmingham, England--a hotbed of Islamic radicalism and terror planning. It is breeding ground for anti-Semitic hate. He is a graduate of Ain Shams University Medical School in Egypt. This extremist school featured on its faculty the father of Al-Qaeda mastermind and number two, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Pere Zawahiri was a Muslim Brotherhood activist.

Why did Dr. Ibrahim neglect a patient who came in with an easily treatable condition and leave him to die, 12 hours later? It appears it can only be because he did not want to treat a Jewish patient and let him live. There can be no other reason.

Mr. Applebaum's son, Michael, is a medical doctor and an attorney. While he was waiting for Dr. Ibrahim to see his father, he called Dr. Ibrahim and alerted him to the growingly severe condition his father was in and that his father was suffering from an acute abdomen. Dr. Ibrahim claimed he examined Mr. Applebaum. But that was a lie. He'd never seen him.

And he essentially murdered him by denying treatment. It's a case of extreme negligence and medical malpractice for the apparent purpose of anti-Semitic murder.

Joseph Applebaum's son Michael is now suing Dr. Ibrahim, the hospital--Rush North Shore Medical Center, and others involved in his father's murder. The case is filed in Illinois, and he is looking for a good attorney to pursue the case he has filed. If you are interested or can help, please contact him at the website he set up to document this ongoing tragedy.

This isn't the only case where a Muslim doctor deliberately let his Jewish patient die, it is just the first that we know of. And it likely won't be the last.

Muslim doctors--especially those from foreign medical schools deep in the world of anti-Semitic, anti-American hate; but many from here, too--have backgrounds that are incompatible with the basic level of care that is required and expected in America. Sadly, no-one is vetting them out of our healthcare system. And no-one will.

But we know that there are many doctors who've been at the forefront of taking lives--not saving them--in the name of the "Religion of Peace":

* Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri--Al-Qaeda mastermind and number two man, reportedly a surgeon and/or psychiatrist;

* Dr. Mohammad Rabi Al-Zawahiri--Ayman's father and a Muslim Brotherhood enthusiast, pharmacologist and professor at Ain Shams Medical School;

* Dr. "Abu Hafiza"--Al-Qaeda master planner who was the brains and commander of the Moroccan cell that provided logistics for the 9/11 attacks, and he recruited Qaeda insurgents for battles in Fallujah, Moroccan psychiatrist;

* Dr. Abdel Aziz Al-Rantisi--Late HAMAS leader, pediatrician;

* Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar--HAMAS co-founder and leader, surgeon and lecturer at the Islamic University in Gaza;

* Dr. Fathi Abd Al-Aziz Shiqaqi--Late founder of Islamic Jihad and active in Fatah, physician;

* Dr. George Habash--Founder and chief of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), pediatrician (which is interesting since he rocketed a school bus full of children in Avivim, Israel;

* Dr. Bashar Assad--President of Terror-sponsor state Syria, welcoming home to every Islamic terrorist group imaginable, ophthalmologist.

And there are other issues, such as infectious disease. We are no seeing cases in Britain in which some Muslim doctors refuse to wash their hands with alcohol-based disinfectant, per the Muslim prohibition on alcohol consumption.

In New Jersey, Dr. Ahmed Rashed, a Muslim Arab resident, severed and stole the hand of a cadaver as a gift for a stripper. Such little respect for life from a religion now very much participating in a profession that takes an oath to do no harm and to preserve patient's lives. Not only did he get a slap on the hand--no jail time and, likely, no criminal record--but he currently has a job practicing medicine at Maimonides Medical Center in New York. The real Maimonides--a legendary, brilliant Jewish doctor, rabbi, and religious scholar--is turning over in his grave.

Perhaps, Dr. Applebaum's suit against Rush North Shore Medical Center will make hospitals think twice before they hire Muslim doctors inclined to practice Medical terrorism against their patients. Today, the victim is a Jew, solely because he is Jewish. But tomorrow, it will be a Christian, solely because he/she is a Christian. Or some other non-Muslim victim, solely because he/she is a non-Muslim victim.

Can we afford to have doctors in America whose allegiance to their patients is far less than their allegiance to an extreme observance of a religion of hate? If they cannot and will not tender care, they should not be licensed to practice medicine in the United States.

[betsy]

Conscience clause, spare me the left/left hyperhole. By your own admission your so called JW doctor would not withhold a blood transfusion, so he/she was able to place his/her religion aside and treat you as a patient.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

You are really are coming across as a hypocrite on this issue.

So you advocate a doctor using his religion as a reason not treat patients that don't meet his moral ethos. How narrow minded are you? Here's another example of what happens when a doctor places his religion above his responsiblity as a Doctor.

Article: and the link: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/20...your_docto.html

Although I do realize the cause for concern with this article you've provided regarding the case of Applebaum, I do have to comment however on your obvious ignorance regarding the particular issue that we're discussing, the case of Dr Gish.

Obviously you've jumped in lashing and ranting without really understanding, and perhaps without even reading all of the exchanges we've been having.

First of all, although they both seem to bear the same ground - that of refusing care because of religious belief - they are not however, comparable with one another. Note that I have used the word "seem", for I am not sure if indeed religion was at the root of the Muslim's doctor's case. I am not familiar with the case.

I do not want to fall into the trap of blindly and rashly concluding a person's guilt because of his race or ethnicity. Even though - and especially - when we have this problem with terrorism. It is easy to become prejudiced.

But assuming that the Muslim doctor did refuse care because of his religious belief, the two cannot be compared with one another.

The Conscience Clause stipulates:

The clause, although allowing medical professionals not to perform procedures against their conscience, does not allow professionals to give fraudulent information to deter a patient from obtaining such a procedure (such as lying about the risks involved in an abortion to deter one from obtaining one) in order to imposing one's belief using deception

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

Solely based on the article/information you've provided, clearly the Muslim doctor gave fraudulent information, and lies and deception were involved. I am not a lawyer. But I think this can be viewed as deliberate murder.

This doctor had broken his oath: Saving Lives. Do No Harm.

Whereas Gish may have refused to prescribe morning-after pills, and refused to name a referral....his action however, did not cause any death or endangerment of any lives. In fact, in his belief, Gish is performing his oath to the best of his ability. Saving the life of a fetus. Not wanting to harm what he may've believed to be already a human life.

The hospital should've made the necessary steps to make sure that the rights of patients are not neglected or compromised, especially when it is stipulated by law that patients' rights to care and information must be ensured.

I am not a lawyer, therefore I do not know if loopholes are possible in that clause. I am not sure if the clause I've posted is complete in its entirety (or if it's just the shortened, version in layman's terms).

But one thing is clear: you do not get the point I've been saying all along. For the last time, I'll repeat it for your benefit.

We may all agree or disagree about Gish's right to refuse. We can only give our opinion on the matter. What I believe or what you believe does not really matter.

The fact is: The Conscience Clause - whether you think it's a lefty-lefty hyperbole, or a righty-righty piece of crap - recognizes Gish's right to refuse on the grounds of his religious belief.

That the clause may perhaps need some refining to prevent any incidents such as Applebaum's case....that I heartily agree with.

[cybercoma]

The point is doctors allowing religious mythology to guide their decisions. Should they be able to deny treatments to patients because of their mythological beliefs? The Dr. Gish issue and the Dr. Ibrahim issue are the same. They both refused to treat their patient based on supernatural mythology they each believed to be true. In Dr. Gish's case, the patient didn't die, but unreasonable stress was added to he situation of being raped and traumatized, in the other case the result was a lot more tragic.

[gc1765]

So, even though the law recognizes and had granted Dr Gish his right to refuse on the grounds of religion, you still refuse to recognize and respect his right?

Am I correct in assuming that is your opinion on the matter?

I'm not trying to argue one way or another whether he has a right to refuse, I'm arguing whether he should have the right to refuse. Put it this way, homosexuals have the right to marry. Does that mean you are perfectly Ok with homosexuals getting married? Or will you continue to argue that homosexuals should not have the right to marry?

[kimmy]

I am asking, now that you know about the Conscience Clause, do you now agree that the doctors indeed have the right to refuse on the basis of religious belief?

While the conscience clause excuses him from having to perform an abortion, I have seen nothing that indicates it relieves him of the responsibility for providing the patient with information she needs to make decisions regarding her care.

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.

So that's it? Hospitals fault; the doctor has no obligation to his patient?

I don't accept that. The "conscience clause" might excuse him from performing an abortion, but it doesn't excuse him from other obligations he has to his patients. The fact that the 20 year old left the hospital with no counselling and no information regarding her own treatment falls on his shoulders. Why? Because he was her doctor. A doctor doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "not my department". If a doctor doesn't have the skills his patient needs, he's supposed to refer her to someone who does, not shrug his shoulders and send her on her way.

Bottom line is that this guy failed his patient, conscience clause or not. I tire of the ongoing effort to excuse his ignorance.

-k

[betsy]

The point is doctors allowing religious mythology to guide their decisions. Should they be able to deny treatments to patients because of their mythological beliefs?

Whether they believe in mythology or crap is not the point.

If the law says they have the right to do so, then they should be able to. That's the whole point.

The Dr. Gish issue and the Dr. Ibrahim issue are the same. They both refused to treat their patient based on supernatural mythology they each believed to be true.

You're saying, if they had believed in something that is not based on what you define as "supernatural mythology", their actions would've been justified!

You are refusing to acknowledge their legal rights simply because their idea of a belief is just plain supernatural mythology, according to you. That to you, their religion is nothing more based on superstition.

That is your belief. You are imposing your belief!

Unless the law says otherwise, whether they believe in superstition or not, the law says they have that right!

In Dr. Gish's case, the patient didn't die, but unreasonable stress was added to he situation of being raped and traumatized, in the other case the result was a lot more tragic.

Then that is something for the court to decide! I am not a lawyer.

The way I see it, it is the hospital that was neglectful and responsible! The hospital should have ensured the protocol was adhered to. The hospital should have known better.

Since this is the second incident involving Gish, you'd think he should've been suspended or fired by now IF he had done anything against the Conscience Clause.

But it seems obvious why he is still working in that hospital. Maybe it's because the law says he cannot be fired!

Gish had been a victim of this hospital's neglect as well - he did not have to be placed in this highly publicised situation, demonized, and have to defend himself just for practicing the right that he legally and lawfully have!

If I were Gish, I would sue the hospital for its neglect in protecting my rights and for putting me through this situation, with added unreasonable stress, having my name bandied about and my reputation being smeared!

For what? Just for having the gall to avoid going through my own painful ethical dilemma based on my belief, and for exercising my legal rights to refuse

But like I've said, I'm not a lawyer. Your article is not complete for it lacks the version or the side of Gish.

It's all pretty much one-sided at this point, mostly relying on the woman's version. Who knows if what she says is accurate...since it is possible her interpretations of events could've been muddled by trauma!

If there is any negligence or breaking of the law, then it is for the court to decide that. Who knows, maybe there's already some litigations going on about this, I would assume so being it is such a controversial issue.. That is when all the details will come out regarding this incident. We'll surely hear whatever the outcome is...being so controversial and all.

UNLESS of course the courts had decided there is no case at all with regards to Gish! Because of obvious reasons citing the Conscience Law!

Let's quit going around in circles here. It is tiring.

I've explained the whole point. THE FACT! Not some wishful thinking, "what-ifs", assumptions or hunches, or off the wall opinion.

All I've given is point out the fact about the right of this doctor that exists according to the law!

That is not giving an opinion. That is just stating what already exists! I'm just repeating what the law says.

Numerous times. As simple as possible.

If you still cannot grasp it, then I throw my hands up in the air. I give up. What's the point?

You'll never get it.

[betsy]

I am asking, now that you know about the Conscience Clause, do you now agree that the doctors indeed have the right to refuse on the basis of religious belief?

While the conscience clause excuses him from having to perform an abortion, I have seen nothing that indicates it relieves him of the responsibility for providing the patient with information she needs to make decisions regarding her care.

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.

So that's it? Hospitals fault; the doctor has no obligation to his patient?

I don't accept that. The "conscience clause" might excuse him from performing an abortion, but it doesn't excuse him from other obligations he has to his patients. The fact that the 20 year old left the hospital with no counselling and no information regarding her own treatment falls on his shoulders. Why? Because he was her doctor. A doctor doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "not my department". If a doctor doesn't have the skills his patient needs, he's supposed to refer her to someone who does, not shrug his shoulders and send her on her way.

Bottom line is that this guy failed his patient, conscience clause or not. I tire of the ongoing effort to excuse his ignorance.

-k

See my reply to Cyber. It neatly goes for this as well.

Now I'm getting dizzy with this circling around. If you guys don't have anything new to bring up....I'll just keep referring to my previous responses.

After all, one size fits all (of your opinions, assumptions, hunches, et al)!

[betsy]

So, even though the law recognizes and had granted Dr Gish his right to refuse on the grounds of religion, you still refuse to recognize and respect his right?

Am I correct in assuming that is your opinion on the matter?

I'm not trying to argue one way or another whether he has a right to refuse, I'm arguing whether he should have the right to refuse. Put it this way, homosexuals have the right to marry. Does that mean you are perfectly Ok with homosexuals getting married? Or will you continue to argue that homosexuals should not have the right to marry?

Homosexuals have the right to marry. Whether I think they should have the right to marry doesn't enter into it...and I know that you know, as far I'm concerned I think they should not have been given that right, since they've had that right anyway in the first place. But that's another story.

However, that being said...I have to accept and recognize that under the law, they do have the right to marry. Because that is a fact now. They were given that right.

I still may not believe in their "marriage"...but still, my belief doesn't change the fact that they've been given that right. They are free to exercise that right under the law.

Thank God that the court had deemed to still protect my right to religious belief, for now at least....while at the same time accomodating the rights of gays.

Thank God that I can still exercise my right to choose though....whether or not to attend a gay wedding.

[betsy]

The point is doctors allowing patients to guide their decisions.

By decisions, I assume you mean "medical decisions".

We should be talking generally here. Because some doctors have allowed other things besides their religion to "guide them" in their decisions.

There is something wrong when it is the patient who dictates the decision that she/he thinks the doctor has to make.

How many times do you hear someone says, "I have this cough. I have to see my doctor and get some anti-biotics." Who made the decision that she/he really do need and should be given anti-biotics?

My doctor is not big on anti-biotics. He wouldn't give me any, unless it is REALLY necessary! He'd say....ahh, you don't really need it! And I see the good point in his decision. If I take anti-biotics for every crappy little discomfort I feel, soon those anti-biotics will not work for me when I do really need them the most!

But some doctors have no issue about prescribing anti-biotics willy-nilly!

How about doctors who issue steroids and pain-killers (like the doctor of Benoit or Anna Nicole Smith)? Their decision you think was guided by some religion? I would say it is safe to bet that in most cases, it is not the doctor who voluntarily offered to give steroids or unwarranted pain-killers, but that the doctor was either persuaded, coersced or nagged by a demanding patient to write the prescription.

And this brings about your point, which I think is inaccurate. It should've said: The point is doctors allowing religious mythology and patients to guide...or in some cases, dictate to their decisions.

As for abortions, who's to say that a doctor's refusal did not also include the fact that he believes abortion does some harm, not only to the fetus, but to the patient herself?

For if indeed the woman has no desire to raise a child, the option of carrying the baby to full terms and giving it up for adoption may be a better alternative thatn having an abortion that may complicate matters health-wise for the patient?

Do we know more than a doctor?

Anyway, how many women had died because their doctors refused to give them abortions and morning-after pills....and how many people died because their doctors succumbed to their pleas and prescribed them steroids and painkillers?

If you would use that reason regarding doctors allowing their decisions to be guided by something other than their better judgement, I think you're quite off-track here.

Your outrage should be directed to doctors like Benoit's....who most possibly caused Benoit's death. Including that of his family.

Doctors like these ones do not have any ethics at all, nor do they care about their oaths.

These are the ones you should be ranting about. I don't know why they're so conveniently overlooked. Unless perhaps, in the usual lefty oblique way of seeing reason....you see nothing wrong with it.

[kimmy]

See my reply to Cyber. It neatly goes for this as well.

It doesn't.

You keep saying "conscience clause! conscience clause!"

The conscience clause gave him the right not to perform an abortion (and by extension, administer a morning after pill.) The conscience clause in Pennsylvania applies ONLY to performing an abortion. It does not excuse him from any other duties a doctor has to a patient.

It seems to me that *you* are the one who is engaged in wishful thinking, each time you say "oh, if only the hospital had provided this service or that service, then poor Dr Gish wouldn't have been put in this position!" Well, the hospital didn't. Tough luck for Dr Gish, but he's still got ethical responsibilities.

Even your ethics discussion from Ascension Health agrees that the patient needs to be informed of her options.

The patient left the hospital without being given the information she needed to make decisions about her own care. That's Gish's fault. He was her doctor. Ultimately he's responsible for the care she receives.

It's not a question of whether he broke the law, it's a question of whether he lived up to his ethical responsibilities as a doctor. And you don't have to be a lawyer to recognize that he failed to live up to the responsibilities a doctor has to his patient.

-k

[betsy]

See my reply to Cyber. It neatly goes for this as well.

It doesn't.

You keep saying "conscience clause! conscience clause!"

The conscience clause gave him the right not to perform an abortion (and by extension, administer a morning after pill.) The conscience clause in Pennsylvania applies ONLY to performing an abortion. It does not excuse him from any other duties a doctor has to a patient.

It seems to me that *you* are the one who is engaged in wishful thinking, each time you say "oh, if only the hospital had provided this service or that service, then poor Dr Gish wouldn't have been put in this position!" Well, the hospital didn't. Tough luck for Dr Gish, but he's still got ethical responsibilities.

Even your ethics discussion from Ascension Health agrees that the patient needs to be informed of her options.

The patient left the hospital without being given the information she needed to make decisions about her own care. That's Gish's fault. He was her doctor. Ultimately he's responsible for the care she receives.

It's not a question of whether he broke the law, it's a question of whether he lived up to his ethical responsibilities as a doctor. And you don't have to be a lawyer to recognize that he failed to live up to the responsibilities a doctor has to his patient.

-k

The answer is right there in that post.

*BIG HINT*: Was Gish penalized or fired? Considering this is the second "offense?" If not, WHY IS THAT, I'm asking?

The only thing I know, according to the article you've provided, is that the hospital finally did something about it....not by firing Gish, as I understood....but by ensuirng the patients have all the medical information they need.

As I said, maybe there is an on-going litigation about this. But so far, I get the impression from your article, and from the article of Cybercoma that Gish was not fired, penalized, nor did he had his license revoked.

This whole post is just your one big opinion of the matter. It still falls under the category of "wishful thinking and speculations" but with nothing of substance to back it up other than hunches and assumptions. So there is nothing new. And yes my answer to Cybercoma covers this as well.

Read again.

Whatever assumptions I may have about the matter, however, are backed by the Conscience Clause, which is by no means a figment of my imagination.

[kimmy]

And the Pennsylvania conscience clause, yet again, only relieves him from performing an abortion.

It doesn't say anywhere that he's entitled to hide information from his patients. Which is something that everybody, including Ascension Health, his employer's employer, agrees is unethical.

We don't know that the hospital didn't reprimand him. They might well have done so at the same time that they requested he no longer speak to the media. Or perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they secretly agree with him and are only making this wonderful new policy with the trained nurses and rape counsellors in an effort to appease state legislators who are about to run over their asses with a steam-roller. (My suspicion is that they weren't sorry when it happened, but became very sorry after a wave of angry media people and legislators caught wind of this. That's just a guess. We don't know.) We don't actually know what went on behind closed doors.

What we DO know is what is obvious from the facts, which is that he screwed up.

-k