Can a doctor refuse to treat based on religious views?

drkpower

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html
(Tl;dr: patient in Kerry apparently refused the MAP by a doctor on 'religous' grounds and had to travel to Cork for treatment)

Im sure the wider topic of the MAP (morning after pill) has been discussed ad nauseum in this and other fora but I am interested in Christians views (I aint one;)) on this particular issue: Should a doctor (or any health professional/pharmacist) be entitled to refuse to provide legal treatment to a patient on the basis of their moral/ethical/religous views.

This isnt a yes/no question, as I see it. There really are three possible scenarios here:
1. Elective treatment: can they refuse where there is plenty of time for the patient to get another doctor?
2. Emergency treatment: can they refuse in an emergency where there is no other doctor available?
3. Hybrids (which is where i see this case): Can the doc refuse where doing so results in the patient having to go to significant additional time, expense and stress in order to obtain treatment?

Personally, I believe that refusal in the case of 1) is justifiable but not in the case of 2 and 3. The provision of medical services is regulated by the State, is of fundamental importance to society and the individual and the usual rules regarding conscientious objection should and must be curtailed significantly in favour of the patient.

PDN

I notice a claim made in that link -
"Medical professionals should act professionally and not allow their religious or ethical beliefs to interfere with the job they are paid to do."

65 years ago. at the end of World War II, German medical professionals were castigated for not allowing their religious or ethical beliefs to interfere with the job they were paid to do.

PDN

But the pro-choice lobby can rejoice that in less backward nations than ours doctors steadfastly do the job they are paid to do without letting their religious or ethical views get in the way.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052502.html

FOSHAN CITY, China, may 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An aborted baby boy, who had been declared dead by doctors in Foshan City, China, suddenly cried out as he was about to be cremated, but died later after doctors refused to treat him.

A mortuary worker at the Nanhai Funeral Home reportedly was startled by a cry from a box, labeled "medical waste," that he was about to put into the incinerator. He opened the carton and found the baby moving, but choking on some cotton wool in his mouth, the locally based Information Times reported.

After the worker cleared his mouth, the baby yawned and breathed normally. He was rushed back to Guanyao Hospital, which had attempted to abort him earlier that day; but doctors in the hospital reportedly ignored him and left him in the lobby to die.

He was confirmed dead later in the day and returned to the funeral home for cremation. However, workers put the body in a refrigerator pending further investigation.

Liu Sanhong, an official with the hospital, told the Shanghai Daily that staff checked the baby for an hour to make sure that he was dead. Liu declined to comment on whether doctors tried to save the baby or not.

A funeral home official told Information Times that he took a video of the baby, who was about seven months gestation, to prove that he was alive when discovered at the crematory.

Following this, the report said that all workers at the funeral home had been ordered not to talk about the incident

mardybumbum

The Medical Council of Ireland has published a set of Guidelines for doctors.
You may be interested in taking a look at sections 9 (Refusal to Treat) and 10 (Conscientous Objection).

Unfortunately, these are only guidelines, and a doctor can indeed refuse to give treatment in non - emergency situations.
Personally, I think any doctor that allows their religous beliefs to interfere with patient autonomy should consider a career change.

65 years ago. at the end of World War II, German medical professionals were castigated for not allowing their religious or ethical beliefs to interfere with the job they were paid to do.

And this is relevant how......?


Link: Guidelines

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

And this is relevant how......?

It's relevant when lobby groups are arguing that in the brave new world which they envisage doctors should not be permitted to be guided in their work by their religious and ethical views.

mardybumbum

I don't think I am following you.
Are you referring to the "Nazi Doctors"?

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

But the pro-choice lobby can rejoice that in less backward nations than ours doctors steadfastly do the job they are paid to do without letting their religious or ethical views get in the way.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052502.html

I'm pro choice and I don't rejoice at this, thanks very much!

I personally think religious beliefs don't belong in a GP's office.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

65 years ago. at the end of World War II, German medical professionals were castigated for not allowing their religious or ethical beliefs to interfere with the job they were paid to do.

I'm a little confused. A while back you argued - or I think you argued - that registrars should resign if they are unwilling to preform their duties in line with a change in law that allows same sex marriages. Should you not be arguing that doctors should seek new employment if their ethical or religious views conflict with their job?

georgieporgy

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm pro choice and I don't rejoice at this, thanks very much!

I personally think religious beliefs don't belong in a GP's office.

Eh? you are pro choice but won't allow choice?

santing

mardybumbum wrote: »

Personally, I think any doctor that allows their religous beliefs to interfere with patient autonomy should consider a career change.

Interestingly, this patient wasn't sick so didn't need treatment. I hope that GPs will be regarded as more than analysers of ailments and dispensers of medicine. Human health is impacted by our psychological and emotional status, which often is more in need of good advice than medicine.

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm pro choice and I don't rejoice at this, thanks very much!

I didn't say you did. I was referring to the pro-choice lobby group in the OP's link who think doctors should not be allowed to be guided by their religious or ethical views.

jaffa20

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm pro choice and I don't rejoice at this, thanks very much!

I personally think religious beliefs don't belong in a GP's office.

+1

How would a christian feel if they were refused service due to their religious believes by an atheist doctor?

MagicMarker

georgieporgy wrote: »

Eh? you are pro choice but won't allow choice?

Yes, that's exactly what I said, well done you!

Mr. Presentable

Is there only one doctor in Kerry? Or is it a case of the doctor in question being very close to the Cork border and the next nearest doctor being across said border, a short distance away. Thus making it inter-county and a headline for the newspaper?

IMHO a doctor is entitled to religious beliefs like anyone else. The fact that there are plenty of them means there's no big inconvenience if yours is a Jehova's Witness, for example.

violetanderson

The doctor can refuse based on his own beliefs but must refer patient on to other relevant professional.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm a little confused. A while back you argued - or I think you argued - that registrars should resign if they are unwilling to preform their duties in line with a change in law that allows same sex marriages. Should you not be arguing that doctors should seek new employment if their ethical or religious views conflict with their job?

GPs are self employed, but work under contracts from the State. Those contracts state that they are not to be forced or obliged to violate their own ethical standards. Registrars have no such contracts.

Mr. Presentable

A further thought: In the USA some states have execution by lethal injection. This has to be administered by a doctor. Most religions would have a problem with this. Just because it is legal should not force the violation of an individual's religious credo.

PDN

jaffa20 wrote: »

+1

How would a christian feel if they were refused service due to their religious believes by an atheist doctor?

I would feel just fine. I would remove myself to another doctor and let the atheist doctor lose the money they get for having me on their lists.

PDN

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

A further thought: In the USA some states have execution by lethal injection. This has to be administered by a doctor. Most religions would have a problem with this. Just because it is legal should not force the violation of an individual's religious credo.

That's a very good point! I wonder if Choice Ireland would be consistent enough to stick to their principles and insist that such Medical professionals should act professionally and not allow their religious or ethical beliefs to interfere with the job they are paid to do.

Morbert

I do think there is a problem here, but I believe it is with the state, rather than the doctors. If the state permits doctors to refuse a prescription, then the state has a responsibility to provide the public with information on how one can obtain a prescription without being hindered by the ethical beliefs of specific doctors. Either that, or ban the pill.

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

GPs are self employed, but work under contracts from the State. Those contracts state that they are not to be forced or obliged to violate their own ethical standards. Registrars have no such contracts.

If that's the case they should publicly display what they will or won't treat due to religious beliefs.

drkpower

PDN wrote: »

GPs are self employed, but work under contracts from the State. Those contracts state that they are not to be forced or obliged to violate their own ethical standards.

Where in their contracts does it state that that? If there is any clause to that effect it could only be in respect of elective treatment. Otherwise, their contract would allow them to act in violation of their ethical guidelines and breaching ethical guidelines is grounds for potentially being struck off the medical register. In any case, a doctors obligation to their ethical standards would significantly outweigh any contractual obligations they may operate under.

Just to clarify one or two issues of law/guidelines (and another poster has helpfully posted those guidelines):
1. A doctor IS permitted to refuse to treat on the basis of any conscientious objection as long as they appropriately refer the patient to a professional who will treat them; in other words, a doctor cannot simply show them the door.
2. A doctor IS NOT permitted to refuse to treat based on their religous/ethical views if the treatment needed is on an emergency basis. Of course, it is an interesting question as to whether the MAP is 'emergency treatment', given that it can be given within a 72 hour period.

But my question was not really about what the law/regulatary environment is, it was about what people think it should be; i know what the law is;).

mardybumbum

santing wrote: »

Interestingly, this patient wasn't sick so didn't need treatment.

Perhaps you need to need to take a look at how you understand the word treatment.

Where in their contracts does it state that that?

I would love to see that as well.

Jessibelle

I personally don't feel that religious beliefs have a place in a medical practice, however I also don't believe that anyone should be made compromise their beliefs for a non emergency situation.
I do feel there should be a mandatory requirement for a referral to another practitioner, if the original practitioner cannot fulfill their obligations, and I think this is where a lot of people fall down in failing to refer onward. Unfortunately the Medical Council documents are guidelines and therefore open to a degree of personal interpretation, if they were legally binding rulings perhaps this type of scenario would be avoided.

ETA: If a Dr is allowed to deffer non emergency treatment due to religious beliefs, would this mean that a Dr who practiced as a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to change a blood bag in a routine situation?

drkpower

Jessibelle wrote: »

Unfortunately the Medical Council documents are guidelines and therefore open to a degree of personal interpretation, if they were legally binding rulings perhaps this type of scenario would be avoided.

It is important to note that the effect of breaching a Medical Council Guideline carries with it a far greater effect than breaching a law (in this kind of circumstance).

If there were a law obliging the doc to refer onwards, the likely penalty would be a fine. What is presently in place has a potential penalty of being struck off, which has profound implications for a doctor.

Breaching an ethical guideline, for a doctor, is a far greater issue than breaching a (minor) law.

Jessibelle

drkpower wrote: »

.
Breaching an ethical guideline, for a doctor, is a far greater issue than breaching a (minor) law.

Thanks for that. I don't want to take this thread off topic, so please ignore if this does just that, but I was told at a lecture by a professor of ethics, who lectures at one of the med schools here, that the rule of thumb they try to impart to their students is to follow their own ethical code as long as it does no harm to the patient. (I'm paraphrasing there). If that's the case, and the patient isn't in need of immediate or emergency care, is the original practitioner perfectly within the guidelines to refuse, so long as they provide an alternative practitioner?

drkpower

Jessibelle wrote: »

If that's the case, and the patient isn't in need of immediate or emergency care, is the original practitioner perfectly within the guidelines to refuse, so long as they provide an alternative practitioner?

In purely elective care, there is no doubt whatsoever that a doc is entitled to refuse to treat (if they refer to an appropriate other doc). In genuine emergencies, they must treat.

But there are grey areas between purely elective and emergency situations. My own view is that a doctor ethically cannot refuse, even in a non-emergency situation, if the patient suffers any detriment to their position (ie. the time taken to refer increases risks or if the alternative doctor is not as well equipped to perform whatever treatment is required). Applying that to the MAP situation, if refusing to prescribe results in the patient not being able to obtain the MAP outside the 72 hour period, a doctor cannot refuse to prescribe it (unless there are other medical grounds to refuse). Otherwise they can, even if the patient has to go to the hassle of traveling to another county.

PDN

QUOTE=santing
Interestingly, this patient wasn't sick so didn't need treatment.

mardybumbum wrote: »

Perhaps you need to need to take a look at how you understand the word treatment.

Perhaps you need to take a look at how you understand the word 'need'. A sick patient needs treatment. Someone wanting the MAP desires treatment.

SleepDoc

PDN wrote: »

Perhaps you need to take a look at how you understand the word 'need'. A sick patient needs treatment. Someone wanting the MAP desires treatment.

As long as they fulfill the criteria for a prescription for the morning after pill, after appropriate advice and counsel, their motives are irrelevant.

Who are you to say she merely desires the morning after pill? Surely that's a matter for her doctor? Walk a mile in her shoes.

PDN

SleepDoc wrote: »

As long as they fulfill the criteria for a prescription for the morning after pill, after appropriate advice and counsel, their motives are irrelevant.

Who are you to say she merely desires the morning after pill? Surely that's a matter for her doctor? Walk a mile in her shoes.

I agree that it is a matter for her doctor. Hey, I'm the one in this thread who's supporting the doctor's right to make that decision!

SleepDoc

PDN wrote: »

That's a very good point! I wonder if Choice Ireland would be consistent enough to stick to their principles and insist that such Medical professionals should act professionally and not allow their religious or ethical beliefs to interfere with the job they are paid to do.

Actually doctors do not administer lethal injections in the US. The death penalty is contrary to medical ethics worldwide.

Of course, no christian has ever been in favour of the death penalty.

Memnoch

It's a difficult topic. Ethics are important and we should always strive to do what is ethically right. The problem is that people often disagree on what is or isn't ethically justified.

Do we have a code of ethics that is centrally decided and insist for all doctors to follow (this is how medicine currently works in Ireland). Violations of ethics can be reported to the IMO who are then supposed to deal with the situation as warranted.

Or Do we allow a doctor's PERSONAL ethics to decide how they tread their patients.

Both views have their benefits and negatives. The argument made earlier in this thread about the Nazi's is an interesting example where doctor's ignored their personal ethics to do great harm to people under an authoritarian regime. Though the question must be asked, were their actions in contravention of their PERSONAL ethics? Perhaps they did not see a contradiction between their ethics and their actions, though more likely they just acted out of fear.

This is the problem with personal ethics, they are a very double edged sword and can be used to justify anything. Sometimes good and sometimes bad.

In a democratic and secular society, we have to rise above this. I believe that a doctor must set aside their PERSONAL ethics in a society such as ours and if they are unhappy with the ethical guidelines either campaign against them or work where these guidelines don't apply.

It's like any other law in a democratic society. You either follow the rules, campaign to change them or leave. It's no different to someone who doesn't believe in taxes, refusing to pay them because it goes against their personal beliefs.

SleepDoc

PDN wrote: »

I agree that it is a matter for her doctor. Hey, I'm the one in this thread who's supporting the doctor's right to make that decision!

OK. But you use the word desire rather than need which makes it sound like a frivolous decision. She may well need it. That is a decision for her doctor.

drkpower

PDN wrote: »

Perhaps you need to take a look at how you understand the word 'need'. A sick patient needs treatment. Someone wanting the MAP desires treatment.

Actually, I think you are the one who misunderstands 'need' in the medical context.

Using your logic, someone who has a hysterectomy for fibroids which is causing pain and bleeding does not 'need' a hsterectomy, they desire it.

Using your logic, someone who wants a vaccine to prevent the low possibility of getting a disease in the future, does not 'need' a vaccine, they desire it.

Using your logic, someone who wants the oral contraceptive pill, or wants an unsightly mole removed, or any other procedure that is not strictly necessary, does not 'need' that treatment, they desire it.

I could go on but i hope you understand the position now; the practice of medicine is about providing appropriate treatment and prevention, not just necessary interventions per se; the latter froms a small part of the work of a doctor.

PDN

SleepDoc wrote: »

Actually doctors do not administer lethal injections in the US. The death penalty is contrary to medical ethics worldwide.

Of course, no christian has ever been in favour of the death penalty.

If you start a post with the word 'Actually' it would be better to follow it with a factual statement rather than making something up.

The British Medical Journal says doctors do adminster lethal injections. http://http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7371/1026.extract

Of course, no christian has ever been in favour of the death penalty.

And of course no atheist has baynotted babies either, which is equally as irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

PDN

SleepDoc wrote: »

OK. But you use the word desire rather than need which makes it sound like a frivolous decision. She may well need it. That is a decision for her doctor.

No, the word 'desire' carries no connotations of frivolity.

I agree it is a decision for her doctor - but unfortunately groups like Choice Ireland want to remove that decision from her doctor.

Btw, I personally have no strong feelings on the MAP one way or the other. What I do object to is ideology driven zealots that want doctors to be forced to obey the state's orders irrespective of whether such obedience would violate their religious and ethical convictions.

SleepDoc

PDN wrote: »

If you start a post with the word 'Actually' it would be better to follow it with a factual statement rather than making something up.

The British Medical Journal says doctors do adminster lethal injections. http://http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7371/1026.extract


And of course no atheist has baynotted babies either, which is equally as irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

If you're going to quote an extract, maybe you should read it first.

The doctor in question provided central venous access. A technician administered the lethal injection.

Now I think that doctor acted reprehensibly and should never practice medicine again. But he did not administer the lethal dose.

The AMA is quite clear that physicians should have no part to play in this barbarism.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

I personally think religious beliefs don't belong in a GP's office.

Unsurprising, since you don't believe they belong anywhere?

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

Perhaps you need to take a look at how you understand the word 'need'. A sick patient needs treatment. Someone wanting the MAP desires treatment.

Wow, that is ridiculous even by your standards.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Wow, that is ridiculous even by your standards.

If it's ridiculous then you should be able to demonstrate that easily by logical debate rather than petty insults, shouldn't you?

drkpower

PDN wrote: »

If it's ridiculous then you should be able to demonstrate that easily by logical debate rather than petty insults, shouldn't you?

Well I did, but you chose not to answer the logical debate.....;) (mind you, I wouldnt call your misperception ridiculous; it is a very common mistake to make)

PDN

drkpower wrote: »

Actually, I think you are the one who misunderstands 'need' in the medical context.

Using your logic, someone who has a hysterectomy for fibroids which is causing pain and bleeding does not 'need' a hsterectomy, they desire it.

If their fibroids are causing pain and bleeding then they certainly need to be treated (whether a hysterectomy is the appropriate treatment would be a decision for a doctor). Having many West Africans in my congregation, I know that a severe case of fibroids falls under the category of a sickness or a malady.

Using your logic, someone who wants a vaccine to prevent the low possibility of getting a disease in the future, does not 'need' a vaccine, they desire it.

That would very much depend on the case at hand. But, given the conspiracy nuts who already visit this forum, a discussion on vaccines is only going to take us both down a road where neither of us want to go!

Using your logic, someone who wants the oral contraceptive pill, or wants an unsightly mole removed, or any other procedure that is not strictly necessary, does not 'need' that treatment, they desire it.

As regards contraception, the degree of need would depend on the circumstances. For example, if the mother has a medical condition where pregnancy carries a grave risk of killing her. A more grey area would be the situation where a couple have had one severely disabled child and know that any future children have a 25% of having the same condition (I speak from very personal experience here - a situation that was rectified by an elective snip that was not 'needed' but was a sensible choice). But, in many cases, the oral contraceptive pill is very much an elective choice rather than a medical need. Btw, I'm not anti-contraceptive at all, quite the opposite.

As for removing a mole, in most cases that would seem to fall under the category of an elective choice rather than a need. There are rare cases where lives are totally blighted by a mole, in which case it it becomes a disability that needs to be treated rather than an inconvenience on a par with boob jobs and liposuction.

I could go on but i hope you understand the position now; the practice of medicine is about providing appropriate treatment and prevention, not just necessary interventions per se; the latter froms a small part of the work of a doctor.

And I never disputed that. But the fact remains that some medical procedures are elective choices whereas others are needed because of an injury, a disability or a sickness. We don't, for example, expect all doctors to carry out plastic surgery on demand.

Perhaps two simple scenarios can illuminate my point:

a) You are a GP. Gary Glitter arrives at your surgery bleeding profusely from his bell end. You immediately discern that the injury has been caused by a set of child's teeth. When you consider how this injury occurred you quite understandably feel moral revulsion. You are even aware that bandaging Gary's todger could save his life and, in the eyes of many people, make your name mud (Unbelievably clever pun there - but sadly the state of the Irish educational system means many posters will have to google Samuel Mudd to get it ). Nevertheless, you are, as a doctor, obliged to give the treatment that this piece of pondslime needs because of his injury. (But you still call the police and get his sorry ass thrown in the slammer).

b) You are a GP. Gary Glitter arrives at your surgery and says, "I'm taking a trip to Cambodia next week. I need you to prescribe me some Lariam so I won't get malaria. You refuse the treatment because you don't want to facilitate a child abuser. He is not sick (not physically anyway) injured or disabled, so he doesn't need the Lariam.

See the difference?

Btw, if any brain-dead cretin comes on here and accuses me of equating the morning after pill with child abuse then I will weep, bang my head off the wall, and curse the schools of Ireland.

santing

I resent the idea that pregnancy is a disease needing treatment.

PDN

santing wrote: »

I resent the idea that pregnancy is a disease needing treatment.

Sadly it is a natural progression. Once you get people to accept the notion that we are merely talking about "a cluster of cells", then it a short step to propagating the idea that it is a cluster of bad cells.

drkpower

PDN wrote: »

But the fact remains that some medical procedures are elective choices whereas others are needed because of an injury, a disability or a sickness.

I think you are creating your own division of medical treatment that wouldnt be accepted by any practitioner. At least a substantial minority (if not a majority) of the job of a doctor is to deal with 'elective choices', as you put it. Is the relief of pain an 'elective choice'? Is the avoidance of a small risk of disease an 'elective choice'? Is the avoidance of the symptoms of a natural process, for instance, the menopause, by way of HRT, an 'elective choice'? Or are they all 'desires' and therefore less deserving of medical care?

Of course not; the need for treatment may arise in different scenarios, but suggesting that any/all of the above should be dealt with by doctors any differently to what you consider a 'need' is entirely inappropriate medicallly. The same goes for avoidance of pregnancy.

As for your Gary G. analaogy, my own view is that the appropriate divison to be drawn is between urgent/emergency treatment and non-emergency/elective treatment. It is perfectly acceptable to refuse option 2; but not because it is a 'desire' rather than a 'need'; it is because it is an elective treatment rather than an urgent one.

What you tried to do was suggest the MAP was different as it was a 'desire' rather than a 'need'. That is a false distinction. And your analogy is irrelevent because it is an analgoy between 'urgent' and 'non-urgent'.

PDN

drkpower wrote: »

I think you are creating your own division of medical treatment that wouldnt be accepted by any practitioner. At least a substantial minority (if not a majority) of the job of a doctor is to deal with 'elective choices', as you put it. Is the relief of pain an 'elective choice'? Is the avoidance of a small risk of disease an 'elective choice'? Is the avoidance of the symptoms of a natural process, for instance, the menopause, by way of HRT, an 'elective choice'? Or are they all 'desires' and therefore less deserving of medical care?

Of course not; the need for treatment may arise in different scenarios, but suggesting that any/all of the above should be dealt with by doctors any differently to what you consider a 'need' is entirely inappropriate medicallly. The same goes for avoidance of pregnancy.

As for your Gary G. analaogy, my own view is that the appropriate divison to be drawn is between urgent/emergency treatment and non-emergency/elective treatment. It is perfectly acceptable to refuse option 2; but not because it is a 'desire' rather than a 'need'; it is because it is an elective treatment rather than an urgent one.

What you tried to do was suggest the MAP was different as it was a 'desire' rather than a 'need'. That is a false distinction. And your analogy is irrelevent because it is an analgoy between 'urgent' and 'non-urgent'.

My dictionary defines 'urgent' as "compelling or requiring immediate action or attention; imperative; pressing". Something is urgent because it needs to be done.

Most elective treatments are elective because they do not need to be done.

The MAP is a need in the sense that you need it if you are going to terminate a possible pregnancy. Gary Glitter's Lariam is a need in the sense that he needs it to avoid catching malaria if he goes to Cambodia. But neither of these are a need caused by sickness or injury. A doctor is no more obliged to provide these services on demand than he is obliged to give someone a boob job because they need it to keep their boyfriend happy.

Many GPs do not provide innoculations against yellow fever. I had to shop around last time to get my Yellow Fever Certificate updated. The GPs refusal is not based on religious grounds. For one reason or another they don't feel it's worth their bother to provide such a service. While somewhat inconvenient, I have no right to demand that my own GP gives me the Yellow Fever shot. My reasons for desiring it are certainly not frivolous - I travel frequently to sub-Saharan Africa - but I don't need it in the sense that I am sick. Therefore I accept that my GP doesn't do Yellow Fever jabs and I go and fine a doctor who does.

drkpower

PDN wrote: »

But neither of these are a need caused by sickness or injury. A doctor is no more obliged to provide these services on demand than he is obliged to give someone a boob job because they need it to keep their boyfriend happy.

PDN, you are wrong on so many levels im afraid. Well, one at least;). I will make two points that hopefully will explain why.

1. A doctor is only entitled to refuse to provide a service if the requirement is not urgent (what this means precisely is for interpretation - and please, you are better than producing a dictionary definition in a multi-faceted debate) or if he can refer the patient to an alternative practitioner.

2. A doctor is not just obliged to provide treatment for conditions caused by 'sickness or injury'. The classical example I provided already, which you ignored, is the menopause. This is an entirely natural process. It is not pathological at all. There is no sickness or no injury. The person is perfectly healthy. Another classic example is an uncomplicated, but very painful (:eek:) labour. No injury, no sickness at all. If, for instance, a woman urgently requires analgesia or anaesthesia in an uncomplicated labour, or if a woman urgently needs treatment for terrible acute hot flushes (although it would be rare - but not unheard of - for such a situation to be truly urgent), are you really suggesting that a doctor is not obliged to provide those services?

The only basis for refusal is if it is not urgent - whether the treatment is 'needed' or 'desired' is completley irrelevent.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Im sure the wider topic of the MAP (morning after pill) has been discussed ad nauseum in this and other fora but I am interested in Christians views (I aint one;)) on this particular issue:

It appears that you are more interested in your own view, and declaring all contrary views to be false.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that you are more interested in your own view, and declaring all contrary views to be false.

Where are you getting that idea from?

What I was looking for was Christian's views on how it should be; PDN is trying to tell me how it is; he is wrong and I am explaining why. 'How it is' is not a matter of view points; it is a matter of fact; and I know what the facts are.

If PDN is of the view that doctors should not be obliged to provide treatment that does not stem from illness or injury, then I would strongly disagree, and point to the examples I have pointed to (above); but what he is trying to tell me is that is how it is; he's wrong and I think I should point that out to him. What do you think?

philologos

Personally I would view the MAP as an abortifacient. As such I think it is an ethical issue as to whether or not a doctor's conscience would allow them to hand them out in the same way as it is an ethical issue to have a doctor perform an abortion. It isn't even about religion, one could be an unbeliever and feel that giving out abortifacients was wrong.

There should probably be some form of database for GP's that do prescribe the MAP, over those who don't. I think it is easy to see why people would oppose giving such a treatment.

Max Power1

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I would view the MAP as an abortifacient. As such I think it is an ethical issue as to whether or not a doctor's conscience would allow them to hand them out in the same way as it is an ethical issue to have a doctor perform an abortion. It isn't even about religion, one could be an unbeliever and feel that giving out abortifacients was wrong.

There should probably be some form of database for GP's that do prescribe the MAP, over those who don't. I think it is easy to see why people would oppose giving such a treatment.

With respect, your religious beliefs and the religious viewpoint of the doctor have no place in modern day surgery.