Evict3d

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

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

Evict3d

I think this is insane, to have one person impose their beliefs upon another.

Thoughts?

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

PwrRngr

While I do disagree with how the doctor handled the situation and his choice, I do not think it was wrong. Ultimately it comes down to the fact that it's his name and signature on the prescription. In the end she was able to go elsewhere and the pill, this is a benefit of having private healthcare.

anuttam

I personally think that if you are working in the ER, you should at least have some decent bedside manner. The really scary part was that if the lady didn't know about morning after pills, she would never have realized that she was not being given all the legal options. What would have been more professional was to be polite and say that they cannot do it but would refer them to another doctor who will.




pathetic. I just dread the day when Doctors will start refusing to treat people because they aren't from the same religion. On the other hand, that would probably provide the spark for a proper debate on this issue. At least in India, caste discrimination is illegal although it is very deeply set in religious beliefs, hopefully there will be some sort of resolution in this area pretty soon.

PurdueDoubleE

How is this discrimination exactly? Did this doctor only refuse a particular service to one patient while granting it to others?

h2oski1326

It could be viewed as discrimination in that the doctor refused to provide a complete treatment to this woman while providing complete treatments to others who do not have conditions which violate his own beliefs.

Lets say another woman came in who was in her first trimester of a pregnancy. She is having complications to a level that she will die if the baby is not aborted. If an ER doctor refused to help due to religious reasons he/she would be in violation of the Hippocratic oath (I realize this is not a requirement but it is a good moral standard). Even if the doctor is consistent in not treating these types of problems it doesn't make it alright. Much the same way a police officer is supposed to protect and serve in the neighborhoods they do not like a doctor has an obligation to help people in need.

The difference between these two scenarios is that the woman in the story does not have a condition which requires the treatment denied, where the second woman does. Given that I could see that it could be considered valid to deny this woman the pill based on religious beliefs. However, if he did not at least inform this woman of all of her options I think he could be found at some fault.

complich8

I don't think that's discrimination so much as malpractice

__________________
complich8.net

PenAdam

First of all, this is not discrimination or malpractice, and instead of worrying that doctors can do this, you should be worried when doctors can't do this. Here's why: The doctor is, in effect, a businessman. Businessmen, are allowed to only provide the services they want to whoever they want. Now with a doctor it gets a little sticky. Obviously, the doctor shouldn't refuse treatment when the patient has a life threatening condition or on the basis of the patient's race, gender... etc... However, the doctor can decide that he will not perform certain services, because he doesn't want to/they conflict with his religious views/whatever. The doctor has the same freedoms as the patient does. This means that when something is against his religion, he doesn't have to do it. And herein lies the beauty of the free market. She could go to another doctor, and get what she wanted, and the first doctor doesn't have to do something against his religion.

Also, 72 hours is 3 days, so she defiantly had plenty of time to get to another doctor, the firsts refusal was not really a big deal.

Analogy time: You walk into a doctors office and ask for assisted euthanasia. The doctor denies treatment based on his religion. Is this wrong?

Most people will agree with this doctor, and in order to do that they made a moral judgment that euthanasia is wrong while a morning after pill is alright. (This is not an abortion is murder rant or anything, that's just the first example that came to mind).

PS: Go to one of the catholic hospitals in the Lafayette area, ask for birth control, and see what happens.

complich8

That's all well and good, but consider that the medical market is very much NOT a free market. Most people have health insurance, and many insurance plans deny payments for out-of-system and non-preapproved hospitals and doctors. Free market + coercion = not a free market.

Further, if the market were free, you wouldn't NEED a prescription for emergency contraceptives, or ANY drug at all, ever. Prescriptions are an access control -- a legal regulation imposed on the marketplace. Free market + regulation = not a free market.

While I'm in no position to do the catholic hospital experiment you suggest (being both male and uninsured), I don't believe that it's a requirement for hospital staff to subscribe to the religion the hospital was founded under. In fact, I'm fairly sure, given that most hospital systems these days are owned by publicly-traded companies, that such requirements would be considered discriminatory and as a result illegal.

Emergency contraception after a rape is not even remotely a controversial issue to the vast majority of people. In fact, to many people who otherwise oppose all abortion, early-term abortion is acceptable in cases of rape.

__________________
complich8.net

PwrRngr

complich8, while you do make good points, you didn't say anything about what I feel was PenAdam's best point...his analogy. Everyone has their own opinions about moral believes. When some person goes against what the vast majority believes it "right" and "correct" then they are looked down upon and criticized for what THEY believe.

complich8

I think the analogy is a bit of a straw man. But I guess that's what most abortion and contraception arguments boil down to.

The Hippocratic oath says something to the effect of do your best to help the patient, and do no harm or injustice to them. Refusing to give a beneficial and socially-standard treatment to correct an injustice perpetuates both the injustice and the harm inflicted by it.

Refusing to euthanize a terminal patient is a matter of the doctor's evaluation of harm: is it more harmful for the patient to die now, or to die after 6 months of excruciating pain? This is open for very contentious debate, based mainly on who inflicts the pain and the death.

However, the morning-after pill in this scenario is distinct from and not analogous to either abortion or euthanasia.

The refusal of one doctor to prescribe it can, perhaps, be written off as personal choice. But if such refusal were the prevalent attitude among the local medical community (ie: if she couldn't find a doctor who would prescribe it within that 72 hours), and she became pregnant as a result, then such refusal would constitute a systematic perpetuation of that injustice and an unnecessary infliction of harm on the victim. Every doctor who thus refused her would be guilty of such a perpetuation, and would, in turn, be an aggravator to the crime itself and be in violation of the oath.

In other words, the only reason that behavior is even remotely socially acceptable is that such doctors are, in fact, in the minority.

__________________
complich8.net

anuttam

Riiiight, so people, especially rape victims, have nothing better to do than to shop around for doctors, get appointments and generally prolong their recovery than to move along. Please remember that most people have jobs and rape victims also get seriously traumatized to the extent that they are uncomfortable with getting treated. To go through that TWICE would be unimaginable.

anuttam

Well he did refuse to certify that she was healthy in order to adopt a child after finding out that she was unmarried. It is the job of the social services to certify that she is fit for parenting and not the doctor. While he is entitled to his opinion, in effect, he vetoed whatever decision Social Services made.