.

[betsy]

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

So you say. But I base my reasoning on this:

"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.)"

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.

Yes a lot of possibilities and "perhaps."

Along with my perhaps that there might even be an on-going court case about this. Therefore another perhaps that we haven't seen the end of this. And that perhaps we see a conviction stating that Gish was wrong....or an acquittal, that reiterates his rightful action.

Which brings another perhaps that we may yet see some changes or re-defining or refining of the Conscience Clause.

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.

Quite true! We can do all the speculating we want.

I could also say my suspicion is that the raped woman could be making a mountain of a mole-hill, using her alleged rape in the name of women's rights. Because my suspicion is that this seem smells like a rat of a women's rights fight actually!

[betsy]

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

-k

No, I am not included in that "we". One thing I'm sure though...that's what you say you know.

What makes you conclude that he screwed up?

Did he issue an apology?

Was he penalized already?

Suspended? Fired?

Found guilty of screw up and fined? Given a sentence?

That might be an opinion, but it is not a fact unless you can prove it.

[cybercoma]

I say it's a supernatural mythology, you're right. Show me it has any basis in reality if it's going to be used to make very REAL decisions of not providing patients with the proper care they need and deserve. You can cry me a river about how it's his right to have that supernatural mythological belief, but in the circumstance where that belief is going to have very real consequences for patient, I think it's fair to question the legitimacy of his beliefs.

If you're going to believe in something that is going to affect other people, you should have to justify it.

Those who don't believe in supernatural mythology have no need to justify it, in the same sense that YOU have no reason to justify your disbelief of sasquatch, ghosts, the tooth fairy or the ancient Greek gods.

[betsy]

I say it's a supernatural mythology, you're right. Show me it has any basis in reality if it's going to be used to make very REAL decisions of not providing patients with the proper care they need and deserve. You can cry me a river about how it's his right to have that supernatural mythological belief, but in the circumstance where that belief is going to have very real consequences for patient, I think it's fair to question the legitimacy of his beliefs.

If you're going to believe in something that is going to affect other people, you should have to justify it.

Those who don't believe in supernatural mythology have no need to justify it, in the same sense that YOU have no reason to justify your disbelief of sasquatch, ghosts, the tooth fairy or the ancient Greek gods.

Nothing new with this one. It's just re-cycled opinion, which was already answered on my post #169.

[kimmy]

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

-k

No, I am not included in that "we". One thing I'm sure though...that's what you say you know.

What makes you conclude that he screwed up?

Did he issue an apology?

Was he penalized already?

Suspended? Fired?

Found guilty of screw up and fined? Given a sentence?

That might be an opinion, but it is not a fact unless you can prove it.

We know that his patient left the hospital without counselling or the information she needed to make informed medical decisions. That's an undisputed fact. That's all the proof we need to know that the doctor screwed up.

Did he apologize? Who cares? Doesn't change the fact that he failed to give his patient the care she needed. He might feel justified, but he screwed up.

Did the hospital fine him, reprimand him, or otherwise discipline him? We don't know. Doesn't matter, and doesn't change the fact that he let his patient leave the hospital without the care she needed. That's his responsbility. He was her doctor.

The fact that the hospital implemented a new policy for dealing with rape victims is an admission that the care this patient received was unacceptible. That's his responsbility. He was her doctor.

Good Samaritan Hospital's owners, Ascension Health, say that the care that this patient received was not up to their ethical standard, right in that excellent web page that *you* kindly contributed to this discussion.

If Ascension Health says she didn't receive adequate care, who are you to disagree?

I could also say my suspicion is that the raped woman could be making a mountain of a mole-hill,

Because if your doctor hid important information from you, you'd just laugh it off?

using her alleged rape in the name of women's rights. Because my suspicion is that this seem smells like a rat of a women's rights fight actually!

Smells like a rat? Please elaborate on this theory. I'm interested to see where you're going with this.

-k

[betsy]

We know that his patient left the hospital without counselling or the information she needed to make informed medical decisions. That's an undisputed fact. That's all the proof we need to know that the doctor screwed up.

First of all, how do you know what really transpired...and what was exactly said in his office that day? Were you there?

How do you know that Gish had really no intention of giving the information of an alternative?

Just because the woman was the one who first brought it up doesn't necessarily conclude that he was not going to mention it, especially when there was already a previous incident.

That is not a proof! That is an assumption!

You're assuming that he has no intention at all of divulging that information!

Second, you're pinning your conclusion based on the claims of only one side - the woman.

Did he apologize? Who cares? Doesn't change the fact that he failed to give his patient the care she needed. He might feel justified, but he screwed up.

An apology is usually an admission of guilt.

But of course you wouldn't care....since you've already made up your mind and decided that he is guilty.

Did the hospital fine him, reprimand him, or otherwise discipline him? We don't know. Doesn't matter, and doesn't change the fact that he let his patient leave the hospital without the care she needed. That's his responsbility. He was her doctor.

Of course it matters! You said it yourself. You don't know.

And you said it in your previous post: we don't know what happens behind closed door.

For all you know Gish could've raised a stink with the hospital for not protecting his rights, AND the rights of patients, by not providing the services that would've ensured all rights of alll parties are accomodated according to law!

There are a lot of possible scenarios that could happen behind closed doors.

You're just focusing your assumption in one direction.

I could just as easily assume - that if it was deemed that Gish was truly the one who screwed up - don't you think the hospital would've at least forced him to issue an apology, that perhaps an apology would've sufficed to diffuse this controversial situation and prevent a lawsuit?

The fact that the hospital implemented a new policy for dealing with rape victims is an admission that the care this patient received was unacceptible. That's his responsbility. He was her doctor.

The first sentence is right. But the following two sentences do not follow.

The fact that the hospital implemented a new policy for dealing with rape victims is an admission that the care this patient received was unacceptible. That the hospital failed in its responsibility. And is now correcting that mistake!

Good Samaritan Hospital's owners, Ascension Health, say that the care that this patient received was not up to their ethical standard, right in that excellent web page that *you* kindly contributed to this discussion.

If Ascension Health says she didn't receive adequate care, who are you to disagree?

And the Good Samaritan Hospital's owners had decided to do something to bring it up to ethical standard.

What do you expect the hospital's owners to say? Of course there will be a lot of PR talk!

I could also say my suspicion is that the raped woman could be making a mountain of a mole-hill,

Because if your doctor hid important information from you, you'd just laugh it off?

using her alleged rape in the name of women's rights. Because my suspicion is that this seem smells like a rat of a women's rights fight actually!

Smells like a rat? Please elaborate on this theory. I'm interested to see where you're going with this.

-k

Well, as I said....I COULD also say my suspicion is that.....

Like you, I could also just as easily and recklessly make my own conclusions based on mere assumptions..

I am only pointing out that we could all have our own interpretation, sumation, assumption, what-ifs, and hunches about this thing! And we could just as easily direct and mould them to fit the picture of what we want to see!

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Doctors aren't the only ones who have the power of life and death. Cops do, too. As do firefighters. Any person knowledgable in life saving techniques may find themselves in a situation where they have the power of life and death. But that aside, doctors choose their profession, same as everyone else, and therefore have the same obligation to perform their job.

The morning after pill is hardly in the same catagory as cosmetic surgery. However, as I already stated, some plastic surgeons will refuse repeated surgeries for mental and/or physical reasons, which is different from refusing it for personal morals and/or ethics.

As for "even the smallest town having a woman's center or clinic"-- not true. And not everyone has a car or the luxury of time off to run to the nearest town that will provide the necessary service. Some needs are on a time line, too, which it why it's called "the morning after pill."

I'm curious. If a doctor's personal morals/ethics/beliefs were such that he believes homosexuals are all "sinners," do you think he'd have the right to bypass a homosexual on a donor's list for a patient he thought was more deserving in the church's eyes? What if his morals were such that he believed whites are superior. Do you think he'd have the right to refuse to treat minorities; or treat them secondary to whites?

At what point do you think doctors should no longer be able to make decisions based on their moral/religious beliefs?

[betsy]

I'm curious. If a doctor's personal morals/ethics/beliefs were such that he believes homosexuals are all "sinners," do you think he'd have the right to bypass a homosexual on a donor's list for a patient he thought was more deserving in the church's eyes? What if his morals were such that he believed whites are superior. Do you think he'd have the right to refuse to treat minorities; or treat them secondary to whites?

You're talking of descrimination.

At what point do you think doctors should no longer be able to make decisions based on their moral/religious beliefs?

You see, this is one of the many problems with liberal moral relativism.

A moral standard won't allow for immoral behaviour. Depriving a man of a heart transplant because he's black or because he's gay would be immoral. As a side note, you don't have to condone homosexuality to treat a homosexual as equal to anyone else regarding medical procedures.

It's only in the minds of those who believe that morality can be changed in order to suit themselves that such an argument can be made. This discussion is about whether a doctor is required to go against his moral beliefs to perform a medical procedure that he belives is immoral, specifically killing a fetus; that is, a child. If a doctor believes that blacks, or homosexuals, or women, or whatever, are not worthy of treatment, that goes against any MORAL STANDARD I know. So he's not making a moral decision - unless you believe that descriminating against particular groups becomes his morality because he chooses to do it. That would be moral relativism wouldn't it?

In other words, you're not talking about his moral behaviour, you're talking about his immoral behaviour.

[CLRV]

Doctors aren't the only ones who have the power of life and death. Cops do, too. As do firefighters. Any person knowledgable in life saving techniques may find themselves in a situation where they have the power of life and death. But that aside, doctors choose their profession, same as everyone else, and therefore have the same obligation to perform their job.

None of those professions has the life/death responsibility of a doctor. Doctors must decide at what point life ends and lifesaving efforts cease. They decide which parts of a body should be removed to save other parts. They decide which drugs are appropriate and which are not. Even so, I think I'd want the cop and the firefighter guiding themselves by ethical standards, but a the moment a doctor stops listening to inner ethical considerations when making the kinds of decisions a doctor has to make is the moment he/she ceases to be a doctor in any valid sense.

The morning after pill is hardly in the same catagory as cosmetic surgery. However, as I already stated, some plastic surgeons will refuse repeated surgeries for mental and/or physical reasons, which is different from refusing it for personal morals and/or ethics.

I wasn't equating the to. I was merely pointing out an example of the awful results which ensue when a doctor acts without resort to standards of responsibility. Of course the present situation is much more serious. A drug which is powerful enough to induce a spontaneous miscarriage should be dispensed with care.

As for "even the smallest town having a woman's center or clinic"-- not true. And not everyone has a car or the luxury of time off to run to the nearest town that will provide the necessary service. Some needs are on a time line, too, which it why it's called "the morning after pill."

In most of the hospitals I've been in, they have this device called a telephone, which allows them to speak almost instantaneously to people all over the place; womens' centres and pharmacies included. Again, if the hospital administration didn't pick up this case and do the necessary work, they are the ones to blame for the problem.

I'm curious. If a doctor's personal morals/ethics/beliefs were such that he believes homosexuals are all "sinners," do you think he'd have the right to bypass a homosexual on a donor's list for a patient he thought was more deserving in the church's eyes? What if his morals were such that he believed whites are superior. Do you think he'd have the right to refuse to treat minorities; or treat them secondary to whites?

I'm sorry, those seem rather inflammatory hypotheticals to me. The doctor in question was not refusing life-saving technique. Just the opposite; he was refusing to terminate a life. Again, I don't believe we should be compelling doctors to do that.

At what point do you think doctors should no longer be able to make decisions based on their moral/religious beliefs?

At the point a patient's life is in danger, of course. That's in the Oath. In your examples, the doctor would be obligated by to treat the patient regardless of his feelings, in the same way a field doctor is required to work on enemy soldiers.

[kimmy]

We know that his patient left the hospital without counselling or the information she needed to make informed medical decisions. That's an undisputed fact. That's all the proof we need to know that the doctor screwed up.

First of all, how do you know what really transpired...and what was exactly said in his office that day? Were you there?

How do you know that Gish had really no intention of giving the information of an alternative?

Just because the woman was the one who first brought it up doesn't necessarily conclude that he was not going to mention it, especially when there was already a previous incident.

That is not a proof! That is an assumption!

You're assuming that he has no intention at all of divulging that information!

I love how you conveniently forgot the 20 year old woman, the one who Dr Gish treated and sent home, and found out about the "morning after pill" the next day when she was talking to her sister.

We know that Dr Gish had no intention of giving the information because she left his office without it.

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

Did he apologize? Who cares? Doesn't change the fact that he failed to give his patient the care she needed. He might feel justified, but he screwed up.

An apology is usually an admission of guilt.

Sure, but lots of people who are guilty never apologize.

But of course you wouldn't care....since you've already made up your mind and decided that he is guilty.

The undisputed facts of the case prove he failed to meet his responsibility to his patient.

Of course it matters! You said it yourself. You don't know.

And you said it in your previous post: we don't know what happens behind closed door.

For all you know Gish could've raised a stink with the hospital for not protecting his rights, AND the rights of patients, by not providing the services that would've ensured all rights of alll parties are accomodated according to law!

While the hospital could have prevented this all by having an adequate policy in place, that doesn't alter the fact that as a doctor, Dr Gish has ethical an ethical responsibility to each patient he treats.

There's no passing the buck. The doctor has a duty to his patient. Whether the hospital should have done things differently (and obviously they should have) doesn't relieve Gish of that duty. But he passed the buck.

The Hippocratic Oath says that if he needs help to treat a patient, he will not fail to get help. He failed to get help.

There are a lot of possible scenarios that could happen behind closed doors.

You're just focusing your assumption in one direction.

I could just as easily assume - that if it was deemed that Gish was truly the one who screwed up - don't you think the hospital would've at least forced him to issue an apology, that perhaps an apology would've sufficed to diffuse this controversial situation and prevent a lawsuit?

If there was a lawsuit in the works, issuing an apology would probably be seen as an admission of liability. It makes them less likely to apologize, not more likely.

The fact that the hospital implemented a new policy for dealing with rape victims is an admission that the care this patient received was unacceptible. That's his responsbility. He was her doctor.

The first sentence is right. But the following two sentences do not follow.

Since when is a doctor not responsible for treating his patient?

Good Samaritan Hospital's owners, Ascension Health, say that the care that this patient received was not up to their ethical standard, right in that excellent web page that *you* kindly contributed to this discussion.

If Ascension Health says she didn't receive adequate care, who are you to disagree?

And the Good Samaritan Hospital's owners had decided to do something to bring it up to ethical standard.

What do you expect the hospital's owners to say? Of course there will be a lot of PR talk!

So you now feel that the whole discussion about the Brownfield vs Freeman Hospital ethics case was just a bunch of PR BS? You doubt their sincerity?

-k

[betsy]

I love how you conveniently forgot the 20 year old woman, the one who Dr Gish treated and sent home, and found out about the "morning after pill" the next day when she was talking to her sister.We know that Dr Gish had no intention of giving the information because she left his office without it.

No. I did not conveniently forget about the first woman. Read my statement above!

I said:

"Just because the woman was the one who first brought it up doesn't necessarily conclude that he was not going to mention it, especially when there was already a previous incident."

Granted that Gish did not give the information to the 20-year old woman, I am saying, ESPECIALLY because of that previous incident with the 20 year old woman, it is highly possible that Gish has no intention of withholding this same information to this raped woman!

That this raped woman had beaten Gish into mentioning it first is not proof! You are judging him based on that previous incident, when in fact it is also equally possible that he had learned from that incident and have no intention of repeating the same mistake!

I don't know anymore than you do what his real intention was.

You are making assumptions on his intentions! And judging him now based on that mere assumption!

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.

So? What does this prove? That he had failed to give medical information to the 20-year old. But we're not arguing about that!

We're arguing about his intention on this other one - the raped woman!

Sure, but lots of people who are guilty never apologize.

Of course! I'm only throwing you some possible indications that might help you prove his guilt!

ANYTHING that might help your argument!

An apology is one indication....and there was no apology, I assume?

So we scratch off "apology" from that list of possible proofs that you may have to assist your argument!

But of course you wouldn't care....since you've already made up your mind and decided that he is guilty.

The undisputed facts of the case prove he failed to meet his responsibility to his patient.

Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case.

If you mean the second patient - the raped one - then the answer is: no, it is not a fact at all!

And it is very much disputed. As a matter of fact, we could say it is undisputedly mere assumptions - on your part.

That's all it is!

Of course it matters! You said it yourself. You don't know.

And you said it in your previous post: we don't know what happens behind closed door.

For all you know Gish could've raised a stink with the hospital for not protecting his rights, AND the rights of patients, by not providing the services that would've ensured all rights of alll parties are accomodated according to law!

While the hospital could have prevented this all by having an adequate policy in place, that doesn't alter the fact that as a doctor, Dr Gish has ethical an ethical responsibility to each patient he treats.

There's no passing the buck. The doctor has a duty to his patient. Whether the hospital should have done things differently (and obviously they should have) doesn't relieve Gish of that duty. But he passed the buck.

The Hippocratic Oath says that if he needs help to treat a patient, he will not fail to get help. He failed to get help.

Back to circling again! Not only did you misunderstood the Conscience Clause, but you still insist on your off-key logic. Your flawed logic was already pointed out to you. Refer to my previous posts!

You hit the nail right on the head actually with your own statement - the only problem is, you don't realize it!

Here it is !

You are right! As you accurately pointed out above: "There is no passing the buck."

The hospital acknolwedged its mistake by admitting its standard was not acceptable, and that therefore, they are going to correct that problem - to make it acceptable! How hard is that to grasp for logic?

Anyway, how did Gish "pass the buck" when according to the article, he did not give any statements???

How on earth did you manage to come up with this conclusion?

They did not say they've reprimanded or had disciplined Gish! Nothing of the kind at all!

They did not pass the buck to Gish!

The hospital owners are going to correct their own mistake or negligence!

Your logic is way off-key! I am surprised actually that this would come from you, Kimmy...and that you would insist on this flawed logic.

As for the rest of your post...they've already been addressed. Refer to my previous posts.

[kimmy]

Granted that Gish did not give the information to the 20-year old woman, I am saying, ESPECIALLY because of that previous incident with the 20 year old woman, it is highly possible that Gish has no intention of withholding this same information to this raped woman!

Gish treated the 35 year old woman prior to the incident with the 20 year old. The 35 year old woman did not come forward with her own story until the family of the 20 year old.

The incident with the 20 year old happened in summer 2006.

The incident with the 35 year old woman happened in 2004 or 2005:

Boyer remained haunted by the ER doctor's refusal — so profoundly, she hasn't been to see a gynecologist in the two and a half years since.

-from the first article posted in this thread.

Would he have provided Ms Boyer with information about emergency contraception if she hadn't requested it of her own?

Well, a year later he had the opportunity to provide a patient in the same situation with information about emergency contraception, and let her walk out the door without it.

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.

So? What does this prove? That he had failed to give medical information to the 20-year old. But we're not arguing about that!

We're arguing about his intention on this other one - the raped woman!

They were BOTH rape victims! The 20 year old woman who Gish failed to provide information was a rape victim.

Dear Jeebus, how did you get this far without picking up THAT little detail??

The undisputed facts of the case prove he failed to meet his responsibility to his patient.

Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case.

Excellent. Case closed.

Glad we're finally agreed.

Back to circling again! Not only did you misunderstood the Conscience Clause, but you still insist on your off-key logic. Your flawed logic was already pointed out to you. Refer to my previous posts!

Your previous posts also conveniently dodge the fact that the Pennsylvania Conscience Clause only relieves a doctor from having to perform an abortion, and doesn't relieve him of his other responsibilities to his patient.

You are right! As you accurately pointed out above: "There is no passing the buck."

The hospital acknolwedged its mistake by admitting its standard was not acceptable, and that therefore, they are going to correct that problem - to make it acceptable! How hard is that to grasp for logic?

The hospital is a building. The hospital didn't take the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges him to find someone else who can provide the care his patient needs if he can't provide it himself.

Remember his oath? "Taxi drivers don't take oaths, doctors take oaths," that thing?

A doctor is responsible for the care of each patient he treats. No conscience clause supersedes that fundamental principle of medical ethics.

If a patient needs a tonsillectomy, a doctor doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "not my department" and send her out the door. A doctor makes sure that she gets a tonsillectomy.

Anyway, how did Gish "pass the buck" when according to the article, he did not give any statements???

How on earth did you manage to come up with this conclusion?

Because, as you agreed above, he failed to meet his responsibilities to his patient.

He shrugged his shoulders and said "not my department" and sent her out the door.

-k

[betsy]

Gish treated the 35 year old woman prior to the incident with the 20 year old. The 35 year old woman did not come forward with her own story until the family of the 20 year old.

The incident with the 20 year old happened in summer 2006.

The incident with the 35 year old woman happened in 2004 or 2005:

It still remains that what we're reading about is only her version of that incident in Gish's office.

And it now turns out, what we're arguing about is her version of an incident that had happened 2 or 3 years ago, at a time when she allegedly just got raped, and so understandably distraught.

Now, I have more reasons to question the credibility....if not the accuracy of her account, given the time that had elapsde plus the state of mind she had when it happened.

I also have reasons to question her motives.

Would he have provided Ms Boyer with information about emergency contraception if she hadn't requested it of her own?

Well, a year later he had the opportunity to provide a patient in the same situation with information about emergency contraception, and let her walk out the door without it.

Those are two separate cases. That he neglected to inform the 20 year-old does not necessarily mean he intended to withold information from Boyer.

We do not know if he would've provided that information had she not mentioned it herself.

We do not even know exact what transpired or what was said in that office that day.

We can assume as much as we like.....however, we cannot come to the right conclusion based solely on our assumptions. In order to conclude and judge him of guilt, you need proof.

We are talking about the proof of intent!

They were BOTH rape victims! The 20 year old woman who Gish failed to provide information was a rape victim.

Dear Jeebus, how did you get this far without picking up THAT little detail??

A little detail that makes no difference to the argument!

Whether they were raped or not does not change the conditions of the Conscience Clause. Nowhere did it say in the Conscience Clause that only a raped patient have the right to medical information.

So don't be so petty picking on the little details that changes nothing!

The undisputed facts of the case prove he failed to meet his responsibility to his patient.

Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case.

Excellent. Case closed.

In that particular case. Just want it to be clear.

Back to circling again! Not only did you misunderstood the Conscience Clause, but you still insist on your off-key logic. Your flawed logic was already pointed out to you. Refer to my previous posts!

Your previous posts also conveniently dodge the fact that the Pennsylvania Conscience Clause only relieves a doctor from having to perform an abortion, and doesn't relieve him of his other responsibilities to his patient.

Read the Conscience Clause I had posted. Maybe it will give you a hint why Gish is still around!

You are right! As you accurately pointed out above: "There is no passing the buck."

The hospital acknolwedged its mistake by admitting its standard was not acceptable, and that therefore, they are going to correct that problem - to make it acceptable! How hard is that to grasp for logic?

The hospital is a building. The hospital didn't take the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges him to find someone else who can provide the care his patient needs if he can't provide it himself.

This is called clutching at straws!

Remember his oath? "Taxi drivers don't take oaths, doctors take oaths," that thing?

Yes? What about that thing?

You mean the oath of : Saving Lives. Do No Harm.

Again, read CLRV's post and my post. That too, had been addressed.

A doctor is responsible for the care of each patient he treats. No conscience clause supersedes that fundamental principle of medical ethics.

Read the Conscience Clause. And please, try to understand it.

If a patient needs a tonsillectomy, a doctor doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "not my department" and send her out the door. A doctor makes sure that she gets a tonsillectomy.

Who makes the decision?

Kimmy says, I need a tonsillectomy. Dr Gish says, no you don't. Kimmy says, yes I do!

Who should be followed? Kimmy or Dr Gish?

Anyway, how did Gish "pass the buck" when according to the article, he did not give any statements???

How on earth did you manage to come up with this conclusion?

Because, as you agreed above, he failed to meet his responsibilities to his patient.

He shrugged his shoulders and said "not my department" and sent her out the door.

-k

OHHHH! You mean YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF YOUR ALLEGED passing-the-buck.

Did he really shrugged his shoulders and said, "not my department." Mind you I wouldn't be surprised if that is how it was described.

Did you read the first paragraph of the article given by Cybercoma? The part when Boyer was decribing what happened during and after the rape? Boy, I swear it sounded like a bad script from a cheesy god-awful B-movie.

I particularly blinked at the part when the evil man said, "I'm done with you!"

Maybe the rapist is a soap actor! Such dramatic lines!

[cybercoma]

Regardless of the details about what happened, how sick do you have to be to find a girl's rape so entertaining that you post laughing smilies about it?

[betsy]

Regardless of the details about what happened, how sick do you have to be to find a girl's rape so entertaining that you post laughing smilies about it?

I'm sorry if I came across as being insensitive. I was not laughing at her rape.

I was laughing at the way the article was written. Did we really need to know the details how the rape came about and what happened right after...along with that infamous line, "I'm done with you?"

And yes, that line really got me! The word "soap" and cheesy B-movie scripts automatically came to mind. I'm not apologizing for thinking that!

I couldn't help thinking that had it been me who was in the shoes of Boyer....I do not wish to have that humiliating part about the rape to be read by millions. After all, my complaint was about Gish's treatment of me. That was supposed to be the issue - the way Gish handled my exam.

The incident happened two or three years ago. Can't it be said that I was raped and leave it at that....then proceed to the matter about Gish?

Can't I just let it be said, just like the way the 20-year old rape victim did...that she was raped. No need for sordid details.

If the attitude of Gish had affected me so profoundly that I avoided doctors for two years, worrying about "being judged" again....then why would I spill my guts about my rape in sordid details to be read by millions? Why should and why would I describe in details how I came to be raped?

How at 35 years old I went home with this man trusting that all we'll do is talk. I don't have to give those details. The details of the rape has nothing to do with Gish.

Shouldn't I be worried that I'd be judged by that? After all, don't rape victims usually suffer from the fear that people would judge their morals? That people will say, "oh, see? she asked for it."

That's why a lot of rape victims refuse to come forward to file charges - because of this humiliation of giving details before the court.

If I worry about doctors being judgemental just because Gish said giving morning-after pills is "against my religion" - to the point that I did not see any doctors for 2 years....then all the more I should be worried giving this writer all the details of my rape, and what people might think when they learned that I willingly went home with a man. Why would I open myself up like that to be judged?

So that part doesn't compute. They don't jell. Somehow, there is a contradiction.

I couldn't help but think the writer (with the approval of Boyer) may have embellished it. For a reason.

Anyway, that's just an assumption.

[kimmy]

It still remains that what we're reading about is only her version of that incident in Gish's office.

And it now turns out, what we're arguing about is her version of an incident that had happened 2 or 3 years ago, at a time when she allegedly just got raped, and so understandably distraught.

Now, I have more reasons to question the credibility....if not the accuracy of her account, given the time that had elapsde plus the state of mind she had when it happened.

I also have reasons to question her motives.

Dr Gish already said that he won't prescribe emergency contraception and that he "has a problem with it."

So melodramatic details aside, he's already confirmed her story.

Would he have provided Ms Boyer with information about emergency contraception if she hadn't requested it of her own?

Well, a year later he had the opportunity to provide a patient in the same situation with information about emergency contraception, and let her walk out the door without it.

Those are two separate cases. That he neglected to inform the 20 year-old does not necessarily mean he intended to withold information from Boyer.

We do not know if he would've provided that information had she not mentioned it herself.

You're not paying very close attention when you read these articles, are you.

Ms Boyer claims that she asked him for emergency contraception *after* he said that he was finished his treatment.

She claims it, and since we know he did the same thing a year later in his treatment of the 20 year old patient, that certainly supports her claim. (this is "establishing a pattern of behavior". You may have seen it on "Matlock" a few times.)

We do not even know exact what transpired or what was said in that office that day.

We can assume as much as we like.....however, we cannot come to the right conclusion based solely on our assumptions. In order to conclude and judge him of guilt, you need proof.

We are talking about the proof of intent!

Why does it even matter what his intent was in regard to Ms Boyer when we've already caught him red-handed failing to provide the other patient with adequate care?

They were BOTH rape victims! The 20 year old woman who Gish failed to provide information was a rape victim.

Dear Jeebus, how did you get this far without picking up THAT little detail??

A little detail that makes no difference to the argument!

Whether they were raped or not does not change the conditions of the Conscience Clause. Nowhere did it say in the Conscience Clause that only a raped patient have the right to medical information.

So don't be so petty picking on the little details that changes nothing!

Just wondering why you were telling me "but we were talking about the other woman, the rape victim!" when both of the women we were talking about were rape victims. It tends to add to the impression that you didn't actually read the articles.

The undisputed facts of the case prove he failed to meet his responsibility to his patient.

Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case.

Excellent. Case closed.

In that particular case. Just want it to be clear.

So is the 20 year old less important? Why are you so intent on vigorously defending his treatment of the 35 year old and apparently have no concern over his treatment of the 20 year old?

The hospital is a building. The hospital didn't take the Hippocratic Oath, which obliges him to find someone else who can provide the care his patient needs if he can't provide it himself.

This is called clutching at straws!

It's clutching at straws to point out that Dr Gish swore an oath taking personal responsibility for the treatment of his patient?

Only on Planet Betsy.

Who makes the decision?

Kimmy says, I need a tonsillectomy. Dr Gish says, no you don't. Kimmy says, yes I do!

Who should be followed? Kimmy or Dr Gish?

Nice attempt at misdirection, but we were talking about Gish's duty to provide his patient with adequate information.

Ascension Health says, Tara Harnish needs to be provided with adequate information regarding her treatment. Dr Gish says, no she doesn't. Ascension Health says, yes she does.

If Dr Gish was uncomfortable with discussing it with her himself, he should have called another doctor or a nurse.

OHHHH! You mean YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION OF YOUR ALLEGED passing-the-buck.

Did he really shrugged his shoulders and said, "not my department." Mind you I wouldn't be surprised if that is how it was described.

A doctor is responsible for his patient's care.

You've already agreed that the 20 year old wasn't given adequate care when she was at the hospital.

Martin Gish was responsible for her care. Therefore, Dr Gish failed to live up to his responsibilities. It really is that cut and dried.

You persist in trying to excuse him by blaming the hospital, but ultimately the doctor is the person directly responsible for his patient.

And we all know this and understand this. If a patient comes to an emergency room with a problem that the doctor can't treat, what does he do? He takes her to a doctor who does know how to treat the problem. If a patient comes to a doctor and his hospital doesn't have the right equipment to treat her condition, what does he do? He arranges for her to be transfered to a hospital that has the right equipment. If a patient comes to a doctor and he thinks that a specialist's opinion is needed, what does he do? He arranges for a specialist to consult on the case.

A doctor doesn't hang his patient out to dry if his hospital isn't adequately prepared for his patient. A doctor does everything in his power to make sure that his patient gets the care they need, and if he can provide it himself, he makes sure that they get to a doctor who can provide it.

Which is why I find it so pathetic that you're trying to make excuses for Dr Gish. All he had to do was call someone who could talk to these women, and he didn't even bother to do that. He left them to fend for themselves.

That was supposed to be the issue - the way Gish handled my exam.

Then Boyer's description of the way he handled her exam is rather central to the piece.

-k

[Bonam]

Religious beliefs have no place in the workplace, period. Honestly, if a doctor refuses to perform a procedure (or issue medication) on religious grounds, then he's enough of a nut that I wouldn't want him performing any procedure on me, whether that particular procedure is one that he condones or not.

[Sully]

Religious beliefs have no place in the workplace, period. Honestly, if a doctor refuses to perform a procedure (or issue medication) on religious grounds, then he's enough of a nut that I wouldn't want him performing any procedure on me, whether that particular procedure is one that he condones or not.

I think we all agree the situation could have been handled with more sensitivity thats for sure and hopefully if the situation arises again there will be policies and procedures in place that will effectively protect all parties that are involved in the situation.

As for your statement Bonam, it might be an eye opener for you, but I will absolutely guarantee you one thing, many of these potential nuts may have already done procedures on you. You probably meet these people day in and day out and never know it. The reason you may not know it is because rarely do your mutual beliefs and morals run contrary to each other. Rarely and yes rarely do these issues arise in the Grand Scheme of things, and I think we can also agree the world is not perfect and may never be. Bonam, can you for instance provide an example of a situation where this has happened to you.

But I do not really think you know what you are asking for when you say religious beliefs have no place in the workplace, I think good beliefs and morals regardless of their origins should be proudly practiced in the workplace. I kind of like the thought of people not lying, stealing and cheating. Look at all the Wall Street crooks, they practice exactly what you want. Check your morals and beliefs at the door. I guarantee many of these crooks were never raised to be crooks, maybe some were, but the majority were not.

Here is an example for you, which may allow you to see it from the point of view of the doctor.

Since everyone is big on the WHAT IFs..... on this thread I will now add mine.

Dr. Gish is working in the ER and in comes a man that looks absolutely horrible. The man is dying and is terminally ill from cancer. He is in the kind of condition that no one would ever want to be in. Wasting and waiting to die, Dr. Gish is prevented from doing harm to this man, even tho it could be in his best interest. If the man comes to the doctor asking for mercy, to just aid him in dying, aid him with a prescription that will make him sleep forever. If Dr. Gish says no, I am certain you would be ok with that response, I know I would be. But realize here is a man who is suffering and only sees an unknown time of dying (thats all his life is now), but wants to take control of it. The man still has his mind and not his body. The man relieves the doctor of responsibility of taking his life. Now I am going to wager a guess and say with certainty that you would be ok with him not providing a prescription or any advice on how the man could end his own life. Just like most people in this world we would all answer NO !!!. For me, I think like most people, I could not take another's persons life and just be ok with it, all my morals and religious beliefs could not allow me too. I could see his struggle and sympathize with him and I know I would never want this to happen to anyone I love. But still I would sit idly by as the man pleads and do nothing.

Now whether or not you want to allow others to have their beliefs and be guided by them is your choice but I know I do. I will draw a parallel as to why Dr. Gish could not in anyway help the girl. Whether you believe it or not Dr. Gish believes that life may have already began inside the woman and that cannot allow him to act. He believes that the life that maybe growing in the woman is just as valuable as the man that is asking for him to act in his death. There is nothing thats tell me that life does not begin at conception and I would say it does, because all of us are here today and grew from that point to have the life we know today. So to ask Dr. Gish to act against these beliefs is ridiculous. To him, his actions were guided by what he knows, to him that life that could grow and live to be 80 years old and that is a future that he feels is not his to end. He cannot aid in it directly or indirectly, because he believes all life is valuable.

Now to let you know I believe in abortion in this case, but I also respect that others may feel different and that those others are just as much a part of this world as I am. There were alternatives in this case and there will be in the future, but for many on here its ok to belittle the beliefs of this doctor. WHY ???

[betsy]

It still remains that what we're reading about is only her version of that incident in Gish's office.

And it now turns out, what we're arguing about is her version of an incident that had happened 2 or 3 years ago, at a time when she allegedly just got raped, and so understandably distraught.

Now, I have more reasons to question the credibility....if not the accuracy of her account, given the time that had elapsde plus the state of mind she had when it happened.

I also have reasons to question her motives.

Dr Gish already said that he won't prescribe emergency contraception and that he "has a problem with it."

So melodramatic details aside, he's already confirmed her story.

All this proved was that Gish had chosen to exercise his law-given right, and by being honest and frank about it.

Boyer, in that article, had made it appear like Gish had been judgemental of her morals. The article seemed quite slanted to paint Gish in the role of being judgemental.

All Gish did was give the reason for his refusal. His religion.

Would he have provided Ms Boyer with information about emergency contraception if she hadn't requested it of her own? Well, a year later he had the opportunity to provide a patient in the same situation with information about emergency contraception, and let her walk out the door without it.

Those are two separate cases. That he neglected to inform the 20 year-old does not necessarily mean he intended to withold information from Boyer.

We do not know if he would've provided that information had she not mentioned it herself.

You're not paying very close attention when you read these articles, are you.

Ms Boyer claims that she asked him for emergency contraception *after* he said that he was finished his treatment.

And you seem to have a problem comprehending what you actually read.

Nowhere did it say in the article that she asked him for the pills *after* he said that he was finished with his treatment.

In fact, here is the exact quote from the article regarding that part:

Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam. Now, as Boyer watched Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart, she thought of something the rape counselor had mentioned earlier.

"I'll need the morning-after pill," she told him.

He was just jotting some final notes into her chart when Boyer mentioned the pills!

Nowhere did he say, "Bye-bye. We're over. Through. Finished! Out!"

Since you're big on assumptions, let me just give you a possible alternative scenario HAD BOYER NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE PILLS AT ALL!

My version:

Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam watching as Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart. Then, he looked at Boyer and said: I am required by law inform you though that you have an option or alternative. It's called an emergency contraception, popularly known as the morning-after pill. Then he explained what it does.

"I'll need the morning-after pill," she told him.

But of course, according to Boyer herself, she blurted about the morning pill as she was watching Gish writing down his note.

That she jumped the gun, concluded and demanded that she needed those pills....obviously she was already informed.

So of course we'll never know what could've happened if she did not volunteer that information.

Note that she did not even ask this doctor for his medical opinion on those pills: "Dr Gish, what about the morning pills? Somebody mentioned them to me. "

Boyer herself screwed up the possibility of proving the doctor's intent - that he had no intention of giving her the information.

And that's what you're judging him with: his intent.

But you've got nothing now but mere assumptions! Based on the questionable recollections, claims and motives of an allegedly raped woman who finally re-surfaced after 2 or 3 years of silence.

[betsy]

The undisputed facts of the case prove he failed to meet his responsibility to his patient.

Which patient? If you mean the first one - 20-year old - basing it from your article, yes he did fail to meet his responsibility in that case.

Excellent. Case closed.

In that particular case. Just want it to be clear.

So is the 20 year old less important? Why are you so intent on vigorously defending his treatment of the 35 year old and apparently have no concern over his treatment of the 20 year old?

Because you're also judging him on the case of Boyer, based on the mistake he made with the 20 year old woman.

You are saying: that just because a man admitted to raping a woman now, therefore he is also automatically guilty of having raped another woman who claimed of being raped by him 2 or 3 years ago. That therefore there is no doubt whatsoever, and he doesn't deserve a fair trial.

Just look at your scary comment here:

Why does it even matter what his intent was in regard to Ms Boyer when we've already caught him red-handed failing to provide the other patient with adequate care?

That's why we have due process of law! To prevent possible injustices by those with this kind of mentality.

That is why we have to be careful of not accepting evidence of similar allegations in the past, lest people like you jump to conclusions.

[Liam]

...As a side note, you don't have to condone homosexuality to treat a homosexual as equal to anyone else regarding medical procedures...

I don't want to make this discussion go off track, but in a world of moral absolutism, how can you set a standard (that treating someone as an equal does not mean you have to condone the lifestyle) but then not extend that standard to other aspects of life?

[betsy]

Anyway, the more I read this article provided by Cybercoma, the Boyer part that is, the more slanted and questionable it seems to me!

For those of you who want to be objective, re-read this Boyer part!

By Sabrina Rubin Erdely

Updated: 2:26 p.m. ET June 22, 2007

Lori Boyer couldn't stop trembling as she sat on the examining table, hugging her hospital gown around her. Her mind was reeling. She'd been raped hours earlier by a man she knew — a man who had assured Boyer, 35, that he only wanted to hang out at his place and talk. Instead, he had thrown her onto his bed and assaulted her. "I'm done with you," he'd tonelessly told her afterward. Boyer had grabbed her clothes and dashed for her car in the freezing predawn darkness. Yet she'd had the clarity to drive straight to the nearest emergency room — Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania — to ask for a rape kit and talk to a sexual assault counselor. Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam. Now, as Boyer watched Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart, she thought of something the rape counselor had mentioned earlier.

"I'll need the morning-after pill," she told him.

Dr. Gish looked up. He was a trim, middle-aged man with graying hair and, Boyer thought, an aloof manner. "No," Boyer says he replied abruptly. "I can't do that." He turned back to his writing.

Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)

Boyer left the emergency room empty-handed. "I was so vulnerable," she says. "I felt victimized all over again. First the rape, and then the doctor making me feel powerless." Later that day, her rape counselor found Boyer a physician who would prescribe her EC. But Boyer remained haunted by the ER doctor's refusal — so profoundly, she hasn't been to see a gynecologist in the two and a half years since. "I haven't gotten the nerve up to go, for fear of being judged again," she says

I don't blame Gish for declining to comment on this article!

[betsy]

...As a side note, you don't have to condone homosexuality to treat a homosexual as equal to anyone else regarding medical procedures...

I don't want to make this discussion go off track, but in a world of moral absolutism, how can you set a standard (that treating someone as an equal does not mean you have to condone the lifestyle) but then not extend that standard to other aspects of life?

I don't have to condone the behaviour in order to treat him in any particular way as far as medical procedures are concerned.

Can you explain what you mean in a world of moral absolutism. It seems to me that moral absolutism is a moral standard as opposed to moral relativism.

I don't have to condone a bank robber's lifestyle to not descriminate against him in a medical procedure. What's the difference? Why can't I treat somebody one way without supporting his lifestyle or his behaviour?

[cybercoma]

Anyway, the more I read this article provided by Cybercoma, the Boyer part that is, the more slanted and questionable it seems to me!

For those of you who want to be objective, re-read the Boyer part!

The patients said Dr. Gish didn't provide the care. Dr. Gish admitted that he didn't provide the care (prescribing the morning after pill nor referring either woman to a doctor that would). The hospital, through the changes they made, admitted proper care wasn't provided.

Really, it doesn't matter how slanted Boyer's part is.

[betsy]

They were BOTH rape victims! The 20 year old woman who Gish failed to provide information was a rape victim.

Dear Jeebus, how did you get this far without picking up THAT little detail??

A little detail that makes no difference to the argument!

Whether they were raped or not does not change the conditions of the Conscience Clause. Nowhere did it say in the Conscience Clause that only a raped patient have the right to medical information.

So don't be so petty picking on the little details that changes nothing!

Just wondering why you were telling me "but we were talking about the other woman, the rape victim!" when both of the women we were talking about were rape victims. It tends to add to the impression that you didn't actually read the articles.

Why do you bring this petty thing up? It does not give a good impression of you, actually.

I could easily and cockily counter: Well Kimmy, for someone who hadn't exactly read the articles, but rather skimmed and concentrated on the facts that really matter, I'd say I did a darn good job!

Besides, as I've said before, you're harping on petty things since that information did not change anything from my arguments.

BUT I do have a legitimate reason to question your comprehension of what you actually read. Because it definitely affects the facts of what we're actually discussing.

While my lapse in reading petty information just make me look a bit sloppy....your incomprehension however, makes your argument/reasons highly questionable...for not only are they based on mere assumptions, they are also highly based on an inaccuracy.

In fact, IF I follow your way of how you judge Gish, I'd say that just because I caught you red-handed of incomprehension and therefore, altering a crucial fact (see my post #194).....I therefore deem that all your arguments and reasons are more likely without any credibility!