.

[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 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.

Of course it does matter. If you hadn't noticed, Kimmy and I agreed on the other case.

We're arguing about Boyer's case! After all, it is the fodder you'd given us!

[Bonam]

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.

I disagree strongly that any of the above morals originate in modern society to any great degree from religion or religious beliefs. Many things that one would consider immoral are also illegal within our society, and that provides a much stronger discouragement than religious belief. Leaving your religious beliefs at the door doesn't mean leaving your morals at the door. In fact, in the case of doctors, they have their hippocratic oath (as referenced many times in this thread), which is completely independent of religious belief.

If you want to assert that religious people have better morals than non-religious people, then you'd need to reference a study showing a statistically significant difference in rates of crimes or immoral acts (i.e. murders, rapes, etc) among samples of religious people and samples of areligious people. Otherwise, lacking such evidence, I would contend that an atheist doctor (or worker of any other profession) would, on average, be no less amicable, polite, helpful, and honest than (for example) a Christian doctor.

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.

In the case of a person in extreme physical suffering, if it is known for an absolute fact that they have no chance of recovery, given that the condition is 100% terminal, and upon the patient's request, and perhaps contingent on the family's approval, I don't think I would be opposed to a doctor assisting the person with suicide, or referring to another doctor that would be willing. From the point of view of doing harm, prolonging the extreme suffering of an individual who is then going to die anyway could be seen as doing more harm than ending their suffering quickly and painlessly.

[Sully]

I disagree strongly that any of the above morals originate in modern society to any great degree from religion or religious beliefs. Many things that one would consider immoral are also illegal within our society, and that provides a much stronger discouragement than religious belief. Leaving your religious beliefs at the door doesn't mean leaving your morals at the door. In fact, in the case of doctors, they have their hippocratic oath (as referenced many times in this thread), which is completely independent of religious belief.

Well Bonam you have to be kidding, morals and religious ideals have been intertwined for thousands of years before we were ever born, to think otherwise is to be ignorant of history. I do recall this lil thing called the Ten Commandments, thou shall not kill, ahh its somewhere in there. But anyways that was etched into history in written form over 3000 years ago. Even I am not too religious, I definitely do not think it played a small degree in how our modern world was formed, it played a major role.

As for your assertion that our laws are more likely to prevent someone from breaking the law, well I believe that is way out of sync with what I see in the news everyday. I would say that religious morals could very well be a stronger discouragement then any of our laws. Regardless of laws, a person who has their morals based in religion will still carry the feeling that will answer for their actions even if they get caught or not. Besides I believe people with strong morals (who cares the origin of those morals, religious or not) would not act in such a way even if it were legal, thats the big difference.

As for leaving morals at the door, that is exactly what you are asking of people who have their morals based on their religious beliefs.

If you want to assert that religious people have better morals than non-religious people, then you'd need to reference a study showing a statistically significant difference in rates of crimes or immoral acts (i.e. murders, rapes, etc) among samples of religious people and samples of areligious people. Otherwise, lacking such evidence, I would contend that an atheist doctor (or worker of any other profession) would, on average, be no less amicable, polite, helpful, and honest than (for example) a Christian doctor.

I do want to assert religious people have a higher moral standard, nor have I. I do assert that people's moral values derived from religion are just as valuable as people with morals derived from society.

I agree that an atheist or Christian doctor are 100% comparable, they could both be great and both be awful doctors. But if your doctor held the same views as Dr. Gish on this one subject, will you now classify him as a nut with whacked out views. Remember that this could be the doctor you knew all your life, who has cared for your health, laughed and joked with you, did evertything possible to help you when you needed it. Is this man's values or is this man's career as a doctor now any less valuable because you do not share the exact same beliefs????

In the case of a person in extreme physical suffering, if it is known for an absolute fact that they have no chance of recovery, given that the condition is 100% terminal, and upon the patient's request, and perhaps contingent on the family's approval, I don't think I would be opposed to a doctor assisting the person with suicide, or referring to another doctor that would be willing. From the point of view of doing harm, prolonging the extreme suffering of an individual who is then going to die anyway could be seen as doing more harm than ending their suffering quickly and painlessly.

I am not opposed to it either, I know I would want my life to end. But could you be the one to prescribe the medication or give the man details on how to end his own life, I know I cannot, it would weigh too heavy on my conscience.

But if that man walked through the door and was face to face with you, can you do it???

[Bonam]

I am not opposed to it either, I know I would want my life to end. But could you be the one to prescribe the medication or give the man details on how to end his own life, I know I cannot, it would weigh too heavy on my conscience.

But if that man walked through the door and was face to face with you, can you do it???

Not sure, people can rarely answer questions of that nature correctly until they are actually placed in that situation. In life and death situations, what you think you would do, and what you actually do, are often very different.

Well Bonam you have to be kidding, morals and religious ideals have been intertwined for thousands of years before we were ever born, to think otherwise is to be ignorant of history. I do recall this lil thing called the Ten Commandments, thou shall not kill, ahh its somewhere in there.

Yes, historically, to some extent, some of our morals have come from religious concepts. That's why I said "in today's society". Most people today realize that murder, theft, etc are immoral on concepts besides the fact that a dude on some mountain somewhere was supposedly told so by God thousands of years ago. Personally, I was raised in the near complete absence of any religious notions, and yet feel strongly that murder (and a variety of other types of crimes) is immoral. There are also many "morals" that come from some religions that we find quite questionable in our society. If doctors of any of these religions want to practice in our society, it is not unreasonable to expect that they leave those beliefs at the door.

As for leaving morals at the door, that is exactly what you are asking of people who have their morals based on their religious beliefs.

Again, I would contend that someone whose morals are really based solely on their religious beliefs and not on anything else is not someone I would want as my doctor. If by leaving their religious beliefs at the door, the person in question becomes a murderer, thief, rapist, etc, then there is something wrong with that person.

I agree that an atheist or Christian doctor are 100% comparable, they could both be great and both be awful doctors. But if your doctor held the same views as Dr. Gish on this one subject, will you now classify him as a nut with whacked out views. Remember that this could be the doctor you knew all your life, who has cared for your health, laughed and joked with you, did evertything possible to help you when you needed it. Is this man's values or is this man's career as a doctor now any less valuable because you do not share the exact same beliefs????

Generally, a doctor that shares the beliefs in question would be strongly religious. It is easy to tell a person that is strongly religious in any type of conversation, even if the topic of the procedure that they find questionable never comes up. If it was the case that my family doctor was strongly religious, I would know about it, and would likely have known about it within a short period after starting to go to his clinic. While the value of his career would not be less, I would probably have sought another doctor, as I would likely not have felt comfortable being treated by a fanatically religious person.

[kimmy]

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 he would have been lying. There was no law requiring him to inform her about emergency contraception. (That's the whole reason that the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act is currently being considered in the Pennsylvania legislature.)

He didn't break any law by failing to mention emergency contraception. All he did was fail to fulfill his duty to his patient. That's all I've ever accused him of. And the undisputed facts say exactly that.

As an aside, he'd have also been lying if he had said that emergency contraception is the morning after pill. The drug at the center of this controversy is not, in fact, the "morning after pill," RU486.

It is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel

It prevents ovulation and prevents conception. There is some controversy over whether it can prevent an embryo from implanting.

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.

I'm judging him on the fact that he hid information about emergency contraception from Tara Harnish, and on the fact that when Lori Boyer asked him to refer her to a different doctor, he refused.

No further evidence is needed to demonstrate the dismal care he provided for these two patients.

Whether he might have eventually provided Boyer information of his own volition is just a side-track.

Maybe if she'd been an undercover detective doing a sting operation, she'd have "screwed up" by asking for emergency contraception, but as a patient trying to get medical care, she did as she was entitled.

We're arguing about Boyer's case! After all, it is the fodder you'd given us!

We're arguing about whether he failed his patients. You keep returning to Boyer's case to try to find some excuse for this negligent, miserable doctor.

The thread title claims "Doctor's beliefs can hinder patient care."

And the way Dr Gish treated Tara Harnish when she was in his care provides ample proof.

-k

[kimmy]

I agree that an atheist or Christian doctor are 100% comparable, they could both be great and both be awful doctors. But if your doctor held the same views as Dr. Gish on this one subject, will you now classify him as a nut with whacked out views. Remember that this could be the doctor you knew all your life, who has cared for your health, laughed and joked with you, did evertything possible to help you when you needed it. Is this man's values or is this man's career as a doctor now any less valuable because you do not share the exact same beliefs????

If my own doctor treated me as Dr Gish treated these women, he'd be my "ex doctor" and my "ex friend," regardless of how long he'd been my doctor or how many laughs and jokes we'd shared.

A doctor who places his views ahead of my treatment IS of less value to me than one who considers my treatment to be paramount.

And a friend who would be such a traitor to me is of no value at all.

-k

[August1991]

I may be walking into a minefield here since I haven't read attentively the whole thread.

A doctor who places his views ahead of my treatment IS of less value to me than one who considers my treatment to be paramount.

Would you say the same about a doctor who refused to provide, at your request, a lethal injection?

Are you saying that a doctor should at all times do what the patient requests?

[betsy]

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 he would have been lying. There was no law requiring him to inform her about emergency contraception. (That's the whole reason that the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act is currently being considered in the Pennsylvania legislature.)

He didn't break any law by failing to mention emergency contraception. All he did was fail to fulfill his duty to his patient. That's all I've ever accused him of. And the undisputed facts say exactly that.

So there is no law in Pennsylvania! Then he is definitely not obliged at all, is he? This makes your argument moot!

Anyway, you seem to be ignoring this one very important part of my post regarding the Conscience Clause:

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.)

As I've stated before, it seems Gish is anxious to prove a point!

As an aside, he'd have also been lying if he had said that emergency contraception is the morning after pill. The drug at the center of this controversy is not, in fact, the "morning after pill," RU486.

It is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel

It prevents ovulation and prevents conception. There is some controversy over whether it can prevent an embryo from implanting.

You're referring to a scientific explanation.

We are talking about his religious belief that causes his own ethical dilemma.

This is like science saying a fetus is just a blob of tissue, but his religious belief says it is a human being.

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.

I'm judging him on the fact that he hid information about emergency contraception from Tara Harnish,

And we agreed on this case.

and on the fact that when Lori Boyer asked him to refer her to a different doctor, he refused.

Yeah, then he happens to refer her to a doctor he hardly knows and that doctor botched it up....then I bet the argument will be "Gish should not have referred her to a doctor he hardly knows! She placed her trust in Gish's referral of that doctor!"

Besides, why should he be required to give referrals?

The rest of your arguments is just the same old re-hash, and had already been answered in other posts.

[betsy]

I agree that an atheist or Christian doctor are 100% comparable, they could both be great and both be awful doctors. But if your doctor held the same views as Dr. Gish on this one subject, will you now classify him as a nut with whacked out views. Remember that this could be the doctor you knew all your life, who has cared for your health, laughed and joked with you, did evertything possible to help you when you needed it. Is this man's values or is this man's career as a doctor now any less valuable because you do not share the exact same beliefs????

If my own doctor treated me as Dr Gish treated these women, he'd be my "ex doctor" and my "ex friend," regardless of how long he'd been my doctor or how many laughs and jokes we'd shared.

Good. At least you are not aversed to using your RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

It is a valuable right and we should not take it for granted.

[betsy]

I may be walking into a minefield here since I haven't read attentively the whole thread.

A doctor who places his views ahead of my treatment IS of less value to me than one who considers my treatment to be paramount.

Would you say the same about a doctor who refused to provide, at your request, a lethal injection?

Or lethal doses of steroids and painkillers....like the doctors of Benoit and Anna Nicole Smith!

[kimmy]

But he would have been lying. There was no law requiring him to inform her about emergency contraception. (That's the whole reason that the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act is currently being considered in the Pennsylvania legislature.)

He didn't break any law by failing to mention emergency contraception. All he did was fail to fulfill his duty to his patient. That's all I've ever accused him of. And the undisputed facts say exactly that.

So there is no law in Pennsylvania! Then he is definitely not obliged at all, is he? This makes your argument moot!

As I've said a number of times already, I've never claimed that Gish broke the law.

I've claimed all along that Gish failed his ethical duty to these patients. It's not moot, it's proven.

Anyway, you seem to be ignoring this one very important part of my post regarding the Conscience Clause:

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.)

As I've stated before, it seems Gish is anxious to prove a point!

So? Where in any of that does it relieve a doctor of the responsibility to arrange for someone else to provide care for patients that he can not care for himself?

You're referring to a scientific explanation.

We are talking about his religious belief that causes his own ethical dilemma.

This is like science saying a fetus is just a blob of tissue, but his religious belief says it is a human being.

The difference between contraception and abortion is one that has significant moral implications.

Many people sympathize with the doctor for not wanting to administer a pill that kills a fetus.

But many of those people might be a lot less sympathetic if they were aware that the pill he refused to provide is actually designed to prevent conception and has never actually been demonstrated to kill a fetus.

I'm judging him on the fact that he hid information about emergency contraception from Tara Harnish,

And we agreed on this case.

and on the fact that when Lori Boyer asked him to refer her to a different doctor, he refused.

Yeah, then he happens to refer her to a doctor he hardly knows and that doctor botched it up....then I bet the argument will be "Gish should not have referred her to a doctor he hardly knows! She placed her trust in Gish's referral of that doctor!"

That's ridiculous.

If Gish referred her to another doctor and that guy botched her treatment, who would blame Gish?!

People would definitely be mad at the doctor that screwed up. People would probably also be mad at the hospital for having an incompetent doctor on staff. People might be mad at the state medical board for failing to assess this incompetent doctor's skills accurately.

It wouldn't be Gish's fault for trusting that the hospital and state medical board had ensured that the doctor he was referring his patients to was qualified.

People aren't mad at Gish because he's religious. People are mad at him because he failed these patients.

Besides, why should he be required to give referrals?

Because he's a doctor, not a taxi driver. He swore an oath that includes a pledge to call in a colleague whenever he can't care for a patient himself.

-k

[kimmy]

I may be walking into a minefield here since I haven't read attentively the whole thread.

A doctor who places his views ahead of my treatment IS of less value to me than one who considers my treatment to be paramount.

Would you say the same about a doctor who refused to provide, at your request, a lethal injection?

Are you saying that a doctor should at all times do what the patient requests?

Well, notice that I did use the word "treatment" rather than "requests". I have tried to be consistent about using words like "care" and "treatment" in this thread when I talk about what I think a doctor's duties are.

I can only think of two situations where I (or probably most people) would request a lethal injection. Either I'm experiencing unbearable suffering and have no chance of recovery, or I've gone nuts.

If I've gone nuts, then a doctor who considers my treatment to be paramount would probably be reaching for his directory to arrange some time for me in a nice, safe psych ward where my mental health can be assessed.

If I was in such unbearable pain and my prognosis was so hopeless that a lethal injection seemed like an appealing option, I would think that a doctor who truly considered my treatment to be paramount would find some way to ease my suffering. It would undoubtedly be an extremely difficult choice for the doctor. The question over whether a doctor's treatment of a patient might include providing a merciful end to their suffering is not cut and dried, as many as demonstrated by the many "death with dignity", "living will", euthanasia, pull-the-plug, Terri Schiavo, Sue Rodriguez type dramas that we have seen in the news over the years.

Or lethal doses of steroids and painkillers....like the doctors of Benoit and Anna Nicole Smith!

Providing a patient with doses of drugs that threaten their well-being for non-medical reasons doesn't fall under any reasonable definition of treatment.

-k

[kimmy]

Good. At least you are not aversed to using your RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

It is a valuable right and we should not take it for granted.

Indeed! The courage of Tara Harnish and her family in speaking out about her experience has done a great service to women in Pennsylvania, and beyond.

-k

[Sully]

Not sure, people can rarely answer questions of that nature correctly until they are actually placed in that situation. In life and death situations, what you think you would do, and what you actually do, are often very different.

Actually all I am asking is for you to picture yourself in the situation right now and if you could do it???

I know you can do that and I know what your answer would be. Just like me it would weigh too heavy on your conscience knowing that you alone are responsible for ending this life. This is not something either of us could take lightly. But I am extremely confident that it would NOT be your hand that would act to end his life. And you cannot hide behind and bypass this situation to another doctor who would do this on your behalf, it would be all you and you alone. Just like you, myself and Dr. Gish we all value life, although we may differ on where we think it begins, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes, historically, to some extent, some of our morals have come from religious concepts. That's why I said "in today's society". Most people today realize that murder, theft, etc are immoral on concepts besides the fact that a dude on some mountain somewhere was supposedly told so by God thousands of years ago. Personally, I was raised in the near complete absence of any religious notions, and yet feel strongly that murder (and a variety of other types of crimes) is immoral. There are also many "morals" that come from some religions that we find quite questionable in our society. If doctors of any of these religions want to practice in our society, it is not unreasonable to expect that they leave those beliefs at the door.

To think that modern society has somehow evolved from a recent and completely independent point in history is nonsense and here is why.

Bonam, in order for our world to evolve to this "today's society", this world had to live out its past. That past is the foundation for the world we live in today. I am sure you can agree to this and to quote Sir Isaac Newton 'If I have seen a little farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.' This is analgous to where we are at present with all our scientific, political, philosophical and societal achievements having been derived from the world and people that preceeded us.

Not all that long ago the world was dominated by the church, for centuries a pope could be more powerful than a king in many instances. The churches and religions dominated their cultures and society and molded the lives of their people. As the world progressed the separation of church and a more secular society began to take hold. As that separation happened, governments and laws began to take form. And to make this clear the laws and morals in society were derived from the preceeding world. So as much as you think that those secular morals are yours alone, you are only kiddng yourself. As the separation took hold, secular society stripped the values and morals from those preceeding ones dominated by religion. Why, because they needed them in order to function. Now rather then the biblical "Thou shalt not kill", its more men should not kill each other. So as much as you think your morals and values come solely from family and society, you are wrong, you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. Hahaha you maybe more religious then you want to be. AND NOT I AM NOT SAYING EVERY MORAL IN THIS WORLD IS DERIVED FROM RELIGION. But you have to realize that you have been shaped by it more than you will ever know.

You were raised in a household without religious notions thats great, that in anyway does not mean you are less of a moral person. That also does mean that your values and morals are completely secular in nature, as per the reasoning above.

As for "fringe" religious beliefs, they are not in question here, all the hypotheticals and What IFs that could happen would be dealt with accordingly I am sure.

Again, I would contend that someone whose morals are really based solely on their religious beliefs and not on anything else is not someone I would want as my doctor. If by leaving their religious beliefs at the door, the person in question becomes a murderer, thief, rapist, etc, then there is something wrong with that person.

Well then my friend, you may lose many friends in your life if you discriminate like this. I guarantee you there are many people around you or close to you that may have beliefs that you are unaware of and would surprise you if you found out.

As for you wolf in sheeps clothing argument, whats your point?? A nutcase is a nutcase is a nutcase. Religious people who kill abortion doctors are whack jobs....but it also does not mean they followed their religious morals either.

Generally, a doctor that shares the beliefs in question would be strongly religious. It is easy to tell a person that is strongly religious in any type of conversation, even if the topic of the procedure that they find questionable never comes up. If it was the case that my family doctor was strongly religious, I would know about it, and would likely have known about it within a short period after starting to go to his clinic. While the value of his career would not be less, I would probably have sought another doctor, as I would likely not have felt comfortable being treated by a fanatically religious person.

I think you are very wrong here. Not everyone wheres their religion on their sleeve. To some people their religion is a very private matter and others like to profess it from the mountain top. There was a person I never knew, who was devoutly religious. I worked with this person day in and day out for 3 years and never had a clue.

What if your very religious doctor has the very religious belief of not murdering, not lying, not stealing and not cheating, is that someone you would not like to be friends with......see both religious and societal morals are not on each end of the spectrum like you seem to profess. These morals can be the same and for the most part there will never be a conflict. Its just you believe they come from society/family and he believes they come from religion/family.

Also can you please define a fanatically religious person????

[Sully]

.....I would think that a doctor who truly considered my treatment to be paramount would find some way to ease my suffering. It would undoubtedly be an extremely difficult choice for the doctor. The question over whether a doctor's treatment of a patient might include providing a merciful end to their suffering is not cut and dried, as many as demonstrated by the many "death with dignity", "living will", euthanasia, pull-the-plug, Terri Schiavo, Sue Rodriguez type dramas that we have seen in the news over the years.

You stated right there in your post "It would undoubtedly be an extremely difficult choice for the doctor". Why is that, is it because most likely his beliefs, his morals regardless of origin would make his actions run contrary to all he has learned in his life. He may very well believe that its not his position to take your life and you already noted it would not be an easy for him to make that decision. I think it would be easier to die then to live with guilt for the rest of your life.

Now if this doctor said I cannot do this because of my morals, would you be ok with that and seek another doctor?

Now if this doctor said I cannot do this because of my religious morals, would you be ok with that and seek another doctor?

In either case you noted that its not an easy decision and I can assume that that stems from the value that the doctor places on life. Now prove to me that Dr. Gish does not value life in the same way but just values it from the point of conception where he thinks life begins. If he tells the woman "Oh no you can go see Dr. So and So, and he will prescribe the drug". He may feel like he is contributing to that action, almost like an accessory to murder. YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH HIM, BUT YOU CANNOT LOOK INTO HIS HEART AND DICTATE WHAT HE VALUES !!!

THE MAIN POINT TO THE ARGUMENT IS YOU VALUE LIFE AND DR. GISH VALUES LIFE AND BOTH OF US CAN SEE THAT THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION AND WOULD WEIGH HEAVY ON THEIR CONSCIENCES IN BOTH SITUATIONS. AND I FOR ONE AM NOT FOR DICTATING THAT A DOCTOR HAS TO ACT IN THIS INSTANCE. Again I am for abortion in this case.

[kimmy]

Now if this doctor said I cannot do this because of my morals, would you be ok with that and seek another doctor?

Now if this doctor said I cannot do this because of my religious morals, would you be ok with that and seek another doctor?

One of the problems with this situation was that this was an emergency room. People don't shop around or ask which doctors might be on duty when they're choosing an emergency room. They go where they can get treated quickest, because emergency situations tend to be, you know, emergencies.

Someone who arrives at a hospital emergency room has an expectation that they'll be cared for.

In either case you noted that its not an easy decision and I can assume that that stems from the value that the doctor places on life. Now prove to me that Dr. Gish does not value life in the same way but just values it from the point of conception where he thinks life begins.

Dr Gish said that he refused to prescribe emergency contraception because he was concerned that it might act as an abortifacient. He certainly has the legal right to take that position, and I have no objection to him exercising it.

If he tells the woman "Oh no you can go see Dr. So and So, and he will prescribe the drug". He may feel like he is contributing to that action, almost like an accessory to murder.

And this is where we disagree.

The doctor's conscience might excuse him from having to perform this duty himself, but when he attempts to prevent a patient from obtaining access to another doctor in time to administer the drug, or when he attempts to prevent a patient from obtaining the treatment by failing to inform her that it exists, then he has crossed the line.

The line he crossed was the line between exercising his religious beliefs, and attempting to impose his beliefs on his patient.

If you take the view that the doctor's actions are justified by his belief that he is saving a life, then how far can he go?

Could he lie to a patient? "You might have heard about this emergency contraceptive called Plan B. Some people think it's an option for rape victims, but they are lying. This drug causes cancer. If you use it, you will die. Trust me." Is that allowed? What's one little lie if it saves a life?

Could he physically restrain the patient to prevent her from obtaining access to the drug? Could he physically lock her in the exam room for 72 hours so that it's too late for her to get the drug? It's justified if it keeps her from going to some other doctor who would give her the drug?

What about physically restraining her for 9 months, just to make sure she doesn't have an abortion? I mean, if he believes she might go have an abortion, he has to do whatever he can to save that baby, right?

If you feel that Dr Gish is justified in trying to stand between his patients and their treatment by the fact of his beliefs, then wouldn't he also be justified in doing these things as well?

YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH HIM, BUT YOU CANNOT LOOK INTO HIS HEART AND DICTATE WHAT HE VALUES !!!

THE MAIN POINT TO THE ARGUMENT IS YOU VALUE LIFE AND DR. GISH VALUES LIFE AND BOTH OF US CAN SEE THAT THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION AND WOULD WEIGH HEAVY ON THEIR CONSCIENCES IN BOTH SITUATIONS. AND I FOR ONE AM NOT FOR DICTATING THAT A DOCTOR HAS TO ACT IN THIS INSTANCE. Again I am for abortion in this case.

What's with the all-caps?

-k

[betsy]

As I've said a number of times already, I've never claimed that Gish broke the law.

I've claimed all along that Gish failed his ethical duty to these patients. It's not moot, it's proven.

How did he fail his ethical duty?

If he did fail it, why is he not disciplined by the hospital or by the board? Especially when there are now two complainants and is highly publicized?

Anyway, you seem to be ignoring this one very important part of my post regarding the Conscience Clause:

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.)

As I've stated before, it seems Gish is anxious to prove a point!

So?

And so, he did!

Where in any of that does it relieve a doctor of the responsibility to arrange for someone else to provide care for patients that he can not care for himself?

Well it depends on your definition of "care".

Where in any of that does it says a doctor is required to give a referral for such things as morning-after pills?

But many of those people might be a lot less sympathetic if they were aware that the pill he refused to provide is actually designed to prevent conception and has never actually been demonstrated to kill a fetus.

But that is misleading! Check posts #218 and 219 below.

That's ridiculous.

If Gish referred her to another doctor and that guy botched her treatment, who would blame Gish?!

Who knows! A lot of people with askewed mentality floating around these days!

People would definitely be mad at the doctor that screwed up. People would probably also be mad at the hospital for having an incompetent doctor on staff. People might be mad at the state medical board for failing to assess this incompetent doctor's skills accurately.

So now, it's everybody's fault except Gish!

It wouldn't be Gish's fault for trusting that the hospital and state medical board had ensured that the doctor he was referring his patients to was qualified.

BINGO! The same way it wouldn't be Gish's fault for trusting that the hospital had ensured that the patients' right to information is respected!

That's why the hospital made the corrective measures in the end!

People aren't mad at Gish because he's religious. People are mad at him because he failed these patients.

I find that hard to believe, reading from some of the posts on this thread.

Besides, why should he be required to give referrals?

Because he's a doctor, not a taxi driver. He swore an oath that includes a pledge to call in a colleague whenever he can't care for a patient himself.

Baloney!

The gist of his oath was: Saving lives. Do no harm.

If he believes that providing a morning-after pill is doing somebody any harm, then it doesn't make any sense for him to call in a colleague to do the dirty deed instead. That's just like me hiring a killer to kill someone just so I don't get my hands "dirtied".

That would really be breaking the oath, won't it? Knowing and believing that I am killing or harming someone by calling a colleague...and yet doing it anyway!

[betsy]

"Canadian Physicians Group Warns of Dangers of "Morning After Pill""

OTTAWA, May 20, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Responding to Health Minister Pierre Pettigrew's announcement on May 18 that Health Canada will move forward with allowing the "morning after pill" (MAP) to be sold without a doctor's prescription, Dr. Will Johnston, president of Canadian Physicians for Life, expressed concern that such a move could endanger the health of Canadian women and girls and raise serious issues regarding informed consent.

"The policy to make the 'morning after pill' available without a doctor's prescription puts women and girls at higher risk for disease and sexual health problems," said Dr. Johnston.

The "morning after pill" (MAP) is a multiple dose of an oral contraceptive, levonorgestrel, which is found in the birth control pill. Manufacturers have reduced the hormone content of oral contraceptives due to serious side effects and health risks. "Now women are being encouraged to use these same pills, in multiple doses, as post-coital 'contraception,'" Dr. Johnston said. "The potential long-term impact of these high hormone doses, especially when used repeatedly, is worrisome and not being adequately addressed."

The makers of the Plan-B MAP highlight on their website that it is "not recommended for routine use as a contraceptive." Yet there is no way to prevent misuse and abuse if readily available without a prescription.

"Physical and clinical examinations by a physician are essential to good healthcare: to counsel patients on how to reliably avoid pregnancy, to determine sexually-transmitted diseases and abusive or coercive relationships, and to discuss health risks," said Dr. Johnston. "MAP does not protect against STDs and instead of preventing a pregnancy, may terminate it. Such serious issues cannot be adequately addressed at a pharmacist's counter."

MAP can function in one of three ways: by preventing ovulation; by preventing fertilization; or if fertilization has already occurred, it may prevent the newly created human being from implanting in the uterus, thus aborting the unborn child. "

The common description of the MAP as emergency contraception fails to accurately describe its possible abortifacient action and is misleading the public," Dr. Johnston said. "The confusion is aggravated by the current attempt to re-define pregnancy as occurring after implantation. It is a basic fact of human embryology that life begins at fertilization. Potential users of MAP must be told that this drug may abort a pregnancy so that they can make an informed decision. Will this message be communicated to them at the counter?"

On May 6, the US Food and Drug Administration rejected a plan to make MAP available over the counter at American pharmacies, citing a concern that it might be unsafe for girls under 16. "Does the Health Minister not have similar concerns about our Canadian adolescents? We urge the Minister to put the health of Canadian women and girls before political ideology and commercial interests and reject any attempt to distribute this potentially harmful abortifacient in Canada without a doctor's prescription."

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04052005.html

[betsy]

"The most common side-effects of the morning-after pill are headache, nausea, painful breasts and irregular vaginal bleeding.

One very important side-effect of the morning-after pill, or 'post-coital contraception', is pregnancy. This is more likely if you waited more than 24 hours after unprotected sex before seeking medical advice, or if sex took place more than once.

Until fairly recently, the standard advice was that the morning-after pill could be taken up to 72 hours after sex, but recent research has shown a significant chance of the pill failing to prevent a pregnancy occurring if taken at this time.

This is why doctors now advise that the morning-after pill should be given as soon as possible, preferably within 24 hours.

If the morning-after pill doesn't work and a woman becomes pregnant unexpectedly, there appears to be no problems to the unborn baby - although it is not possible to give an absolute guarantee of this.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/birthcontro...ion/203294.html

[betsy]

Or lethal doses of steroids and painkillers....like the doctors of Benoit and Anna Nicole Smith!

Providing a patient with doses of drugs that threaten their well-being for non-medical reasons doesn't fall under any reasonable definition of treatment.

-k

But a lot of patients who end up abusing pain-killers started taking it for medical reasons.

And some patients take on the role of knowing more than the doctor. They don't even have the courtesy of pretending to ask for the doctor's expert opinion......typical of Boyer's attitude, stating a demand: "I need morning-after pills!"

So anyway, why is the outrage so focused on Gish and these bloody morning-after pill.....when some doctors break their oaths without any qualms that result in deaths and serious injuries?

[Sully]

One of the problems with this situation was that this was an emergency room. People don't shop around or ask which doctors might be on duty when they're choosing an emergency room. They go where they can get treated quickest, because emergency situations tend to be, you know, emergencies.

Someone who arrives at a hospital emergency room has an expectation that they'll be cared for.

Well Kimmy because one walks into an emergency, does not necessarily qualify it as an emergency. An emergency to most would indicate an IMMEDIATE THREAT to the well being of the patient, you know a LIFE OR DEATH situation. No one is trying to take away the seriousness of how horrible this situation was. This poor girl been put through a traumatic experience but her experience does not override his beliefs. In no way shape or form from what I have read was she in an "emergency" situation, traumatic YES, emergency NO.

According to this logic if she walked into a clinic it would not be an classified an emergency.

If I walk into a Catholic Church does that make me Catholic.

If I were her bf I would have taken her to a the emergency room or clinic to have her checked out too, its a natural assumption. I would have been super pissed at that doctor, but then again when he was of no help I would have walked around him and asked around til I got some help from someone else able to do it.

If he tells the woman "Oh no you can go see Dr. So and So, and he will prescribe the drug". He may feel like he is contributing to that action, almost like an accessory to murder.

And this is where we disagree. The doctor's conscience might excuse him from having to perform this duty himself, but when he attempts to prevent a patient from obtaining access to another doctor in time to administer the drug, or when he attempts to prevent a patient from obtaining the treatment by failing to inform her that it exists, then he has crossed the line.

Depends on what you mean by prevention, if he aids the woman in no way, there is absolutely no prevention there on his part. If he was actively preventing access to some other doctor that is 100% UNACCEPTABLE, which is not the case, he is just not aiding her for reasons we already discussed. As for failing to inform her it exists is silly, she ALREADY KNOWS it exists and that was the whole purpose of her trip to the emergency room.

The line he crossed was the line between exercising his religious beliefs, and attempting to impose his beliefs on his patient.

If you take the view that the doctor's actions are justified by his belief that he is saving a life, then how far can he go?

See this is where you muddy the water Kimmy. He crossed no line whatsoever. By exercising his own beliefs about his own actions is in no way imposing his beliefs on anyone else. Her rights stop at the moment they infringe upon his and vice versa, there is no RIGHT of patient to make a doctor to do whatever they ask. Its funny for someone who thinks he is imposing his beliefs and how annoyed that makes you feel. You seem all too ready to force your beliefs upon the doctor and say he was and should be made to act. See whereas he has the right NOT TO ACT, you are fighting on the side that he should be MADE TO ACT, now tell me again who really here is imposing their beliefs on who, the doctor or someone who thinks like you do.

Could he lie to a patient? "You might have heard about this emergency contraceptive called Plan B. Some people think it's an option for rape victims, but they are lying. This drug causes cancer. If you use it, you will die. Trust me." Is that allowed? What's one little lie if it saves a life?

Lying is wrong and should not be condoned, actively giving misleading information is wrong. I would not agree to any of that either.

Could he physically restrain the patient to prevent her from obtaining access to the drug? Could he physically lock her in the exam room for 72 hours so that it's too late for her to get the drug? It's justified if it keeps her from going to some other doctor who would give her the drug?

What about physically restraining her for 9 months, just to make sure she doesn't have an abortion? I mean, if he believes she might go have an abortion, he has to do whatever he can to save that baby, right?

Alright Kimmy it only took us a couple posts to board the crazy train (woo woo full steam ahead), here comes the brilliant scenarios and WHAT IFs. See you are missing the fact that she has rights, rights to go another hospital, doctor etc.......See again you miss the point, and this is no small point let me tell you, its one you take for granted day in and day out. OTHER PEOPLE PEOPLES RIGHTS STOP AT THE MOMENT THEY INFRINGE UPON YOURS. GOT IT!!! As much as you would like this doctor to be devoid any individual rights, I am glad he is granted them like the rest of us.

On a side note, I hope they do not find that secret lair behind his office, you know the one where he shackles women like this up.

If you feel that Dr Gish is justified in trying to stand between his patients and their treatment by the fact of his beliefs, then wouldn't he also be justified in doing these things as well?

I do not feel he is standing in anyones way, you just want it to sound like that to make your faultering argument have some substance. I just do not agree with you or anyone walking through that emergency room to stand between him and his beliefs. Your wishes do not trounce his rights THANK GOD!!

YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH HIM, BUT YOU CANNOT LOOK INTO HIS HEART AND DICTATE WHAT HE VALUES !!!

THE MAIN POINT TO THE ARGUMENT IS YOU VALUE LIFE AND DR. GISH VALUES LIFE AND BOTH OF US CAN SEE THAT THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION AND WOULD WEIGH HEAVY ON THEIR CONSCIENCES IN BOTH SITUATIONS. AND I FOR ONE AM NOT FOR DICTATING THAT A DOCTOR HAS TO ACT IN THIS INSTANCE. Again I am for abortion in this case.

What's with the all-caps?

Well I was raising my voice.

Well to simplify things I will keep it short

Older man with terminal cancer = taking his life is ok and you acknowledge the difficulty of the decision of the doctor. Why because its a life he would be taking (DIFFICULTY OF THE SITUATION FOR THE DOCTOR STEMS FROM MORALS OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN)

Potential life being born and the same doctor seeing life starting at that point, in his eyes they are of completely equal value to older man dying from cancer (DIFFICULTY OF THE SITUATION FOR THE DOCTOR STEMS FROM MORALS OF RELIGIOUS ORIGIN)

So what is your problem Kimmy, you can afford consideration for the doctor with the situation of the Older Man with Cancer, but not the doctor who feels equally strong about the life of a potential unborn child.

So either:

1.) You do not like religion, because I am curious if this doctor had these beliefs just upon his own with no religious ties, would you say his societal morals are wrong too

2.) You are a woman and focus more on the woman's situation, than the rights of the doctor

3.) You are being a hypocrite, allowing one doctor extra consideration for the exact same belief in the value of life

[betsy]

deleted.

[Bonam]

To think that modern society has somehow evolved from a recent and completely independent point in history is nonsense and here is why.

Sully, I am well aware of the significant effects that religion has had on human history. The thing you seem to fail to realise is that the religious morals or rules themselves came from existing primarily secular perceptions of what is right or wrong, or in some cases even just what is productive and acceptable in a human society. Contrary to your statements about modern morality coming from the period when the Church was dominant in European (or as you put it, "world") politics, most of our concepts of morality (such as prohibitions against murder, theft, etc) come from long before that period. In fact, codes of law (incorporating prohibitions or punishments against what we today would consider immoral acts) have existed for thousands of years before the development of the modern monotheist religions. These evolved out of simple reality, like the fact that one member of a tribe murdering another member is counterproductive to the survival of the tribe, not from pronouncements of any divine entity.

As for "fringe" religious beliefs, they are not in question here, all the hypotheticals and What IFs that could happen would be dealt with accordingly I am sure.

Fringe religious beliefs are indeed in question here. In my opinion, the belief that a "morning after pill" should not be prescribed since that would "murder" the pre-embryonic "human" is right out there on the fringe.

As for you wolf in sheeps clothing argument, whats your point?? A nutcase is a nutcase is a nutcase. Religious people who kill abortion doctors are whack jobs....but it also does not mean they followed their religious morals either.

My point is simple. If a person's morals are based only on religion, then there is something wrong. Leaving behind religious beliefs, a member of modern society should still have other secular notions that would impel them not to commit acts of murder, theft, etc. If they lack these secular notions, and do not commit the above acts solely based on their beliefs in God, then, like I said, there is something wrong.

What if your very religious doctor has the very religious belief of not murdering, not lying, not stealing and not cheating, is that someone you would not like to be friends with......see both religious and societal morals are not on each end of the spectrum like you seem to profess. These morals can be the same and for the most part there will never be a conflict. Its just you believe they come from society/family and he believes they come from religion/family.

Having religious beliefs that are also in line with the secular principles of our society is fine. However, like I said, those religious beliefs should not be the sole basis of those morals in a member of our current society. However, for the majority of modern institutionalized religions, including most forms of Christianity, there are also beliefs that come in direct conflict with those of our current society, with the knowledge provided to us by scientific investigation, or with principles/values of the western world. Devout followers of these religions will therefore also be in conflict with those beliefs as well.

A person that picks and chooses only the beliefs of "not murdering, not lying, not stealing, and not cheating" (and other values that complement our society) out of a religion, and ignores all the rest that doesn't fit in with the accepted notions of our modern society is not a religious person, they are an atheist that doesn't want to admit it to themselves. I have no problem with such people. It is only those that accept all the precepts of their religion, without question, that are frightening.

[kimmy]

As I've said a number of times already, I've never claimed that Gish broke the law.

I've claimed all along that Gish failed his ethical duty to these patients. It's not moot, it's proven.

How did he fail his ethical duty?

If he did fail it, why is he not disciplined by the hospital or by the board? Especially when there are now two complainants and is highly publicized?

Ascension Health says a patient needs adequate information to make informed decisions about her treatment. You yourself have agreed that it is unacceptable that Tara Harnish was not given the information she needed.

As her doctor, responsibility for her treatment fell on Gish's shoulders.

Ergo he failed his ethical duty.

That's about as QED as it gets.

I have not seen any evidence that he was disciplined by the hospital or the state medical board.

Are you asking me to speculate as to why that might be?

So?

And so, he did!

Yes he did. He proved that many people don't think it's acceptable for a physician to hide information from his patient. And he provoked a controversy that ensured that his own hospital will provide counselling about emergency contraception. He also set in motion a state law that if passed ensure that every hospital in Pennsylvania will provide information and access to emergency contraception. And he brought national attention to emergency contraception.

If Dr Gish believes that emergency contraception is murder, then I wonder how he feels that so many more women will have information about it and access to it as a direct result of his actions? Interesting. I wonder how he's sleeping these days...

Where in any of that does it relieve a doctor of the responsibility to arrange for someone else to provide care for patients that he can not care for himself?

Well it depends on your definition of "care".

Where in any of that does it says a doctor is required to give a referral for such things as morning-after pills?

The definition of care is not at the doctor's moral discretion.

There is a fundamental principle that patients be given adequate information to make informed choices about their own care.

A doctor explains the options and the risks.

"We can surgically remove most of the growth and try to attack the rest with chemotherapy. The chemotherapy is very difficult, and you'll spend months feeling tired and nauseous. But there is a very good chance that you can recover from this. Or, there is a new drug, but it doesn't have a high success rate. It is not as difficult as the chemotherapy, but the chance of success is significantly lower. It's also very expensive and it's not covered by health insurance yet. The only other option is to not treat it. But if we don't treat it, it will be fatal in six months to a year."

But the patient ultimately chooses what's best for her.

"I think the surgery and chemotherapy is the best choice. I want to try and fight this."

The doctor doesn't make that decision for the patient. Nor does he hide options from her if they don't suit his views.

People would definitely be mad at the doctor that screwed up. People would probably also be mad at the hospital for having an incompetent doctor on staff. People might be mad at the state medical board for failing to assess this incompetent doctor's skills accurately.

So now, it's everybody's fault except Gish!

If he had done his job, then yes, it would be somebody's fault other than Gish. It's such a simple concept that I'm puzzled that you seem unable to grasp it.

People aren't mad at Gish because he's religious. People are mad at him because he failed these patients.

I find that hard to believe, reading from some of the posts on this thread.

The root issue, the one that got Dr Gish in the news, is not that he's religious, but the way in which he treated a young rape victim when she needed his help.

If Tara's mom had gone to the newspaper and her only complaint was the doctor's religion, do you think it would have become a news story?

Out of the thousands upon thousands of doctors in the United States who have religious beliefs, we're talking about this one specific doctor. Why? Because of what he did.

Likewise the Muslim doctor mentioned earlier on who let the Jewish man die. Is it newsworthy that the doctor is Muslim? There's a lot of other Muslim doctors who aren't in the news... maybe the fact that he neglected a Jewish patient is what made his religious views noteworthy.

Besides, why should he be required to give referrals?

Because he's a doctor, not a taxi driver. He swore an oath that includes a pledge to call in a colleague whenever he can't care for a patient himself.

Baloney!

The gist of his oath was: Saving lives. Do no harm.

You posted the whole thing earlier in this thread, but now you want us to forget all that and just focus on the part that suits your purpose.

The oath has a number of "gists" addressing a wide variety of a doctor's ethical duties, including things like a reminder to respect the privacy of the patient, a reminder that he is caring for a patient and not just treating a medical condition, and --particularly relevant to this case-- the pledge to call in a colleague if he is unable to care for a patient himself.

If he believes that providing a morning-after pill is doing somebody any harm, then it doesn't make any sense for him to call in a colleague to do the dirty deed instead. That's just like me hiring a killer to kill someone just so I don't get my hands "dirtied".

That would really be breaking the oath, won't it? Knowing and believing that I am killing or harming someone by calling a colleague...and yet doing it anyway!

So how can Gish possibly allow the next rape victim he sees to talk to one of these specially trained nurses that Good Samaritan now has on hand, when he knows full well that that nurse is going to tell that woman about the emergency contraception pill?

Earlier you were arguing that the hospital failed Dr Gish by failing to have a rape counsellor on hand to assist him with these patients. But now you're arguing that Dr Gish would have been breaking his oath if he actually let his patient talk to one of these counsellors.

So which is it?

-k

[August1991]

Well, notice that I did use the word "treatment" rather than "requests". I have tried to be consistent about using words like "care" and "treatment" in this thread when I talk about what I think a doctor's duties are.

Kimmy, I thinnk you are conveniently playing with the meaning of words and in so doing, you are giving an ad hoc basis to your argument. What is treatment to one is a request to another.

It seems to me that the real problem here is that this patient did not have a choice. She showed up in an emergency ward and the only doctor on duty, for personal moral reasons, would not administer a legal procedure.

To my knowledge, there is no doctor in PEI (and NB?) who will administer an abortion and so women must leave the province. Of course, they have the choice to do this. The woman in your case above did not.

In essence, I have to agree with Betsy that we cannot force someone to act against their moral conscience. (That's an idea at least as old as Henry VIII and Thomas More.)

BTW, I have often argued here that the best measure of wealth is not how much money one has but rather how many choices one has. This woman clearly didn't have a choice and that derives from her "poverty", not from anything else.

I suppose we could fault the doctor for not advising her of alternatives but I think that begs the question. She was aware of the morning after pill (or whatever it's called) apparently.

In deference to Kimmy however, it is perhaps the fault of the hospital administrator to have named such a man to be the sole doctor on duty in the emergency ward. Couldn't the administrator have found someone more flexible?