Woman Denied Emergancy Contraception On Religious Grounds (In Ireland)

Byron85

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html

Sunday, August 29, 2010 Previous editions

Woman denied pill on ‘religious’ basis

By Claire O’Sullivan

Saturday, August 28, 2010

A KERRY woman had to travel to Cork to get the morning-after-pill after she was refused the emergency contraception on "religious grounds".


a d v e r t i s e m e n t


Now women’s health lobby group Choice Ireland has called for emergency contraception to be made available over-the-counter

The group claims women have said they are forced to travel to clinics outside Kerry as doctors there won’t give them the pill.

One woman said she had to travel to Cork the following day after she was refused the contraception at SouthDoc in Tralee and couldn’t find any other GP surgery that was open on a Sunday.

The morning-after contraceptive pill can be taken for up to 72 hours after unprotected sex but the earlier it is taken, the more effective it is.

Spokeswoman for Choice Ireland Sinead Ahern said it is unfair for women to be forced to pay up to €60 for a GP appointment to obtain the pill, before they even pay for their prescription.

"The need for a prescription to obtain the morning -after-pill is a significant burden in itself," she said.

"A woman must first find a GP who will see her – which can be difficult at the weekend, when demand for the pill is highest – and then pay the roughly €60 visit fee, on top of the charge for the pill.

"The longer the delay, the less effective the pill. This poses a particular problem for women in rural areas where access to GPs can be very limited, especially at weekends," she added.

"It is totally unacceptable that a woman can be denied the pill on the basis of that GP’s personal views.

"Medical professionals should act professionally and not allow their religious or ethical beliefs to interfere with the job they are paid to do.

"It is incumbent on the HSE to ensure that patients are not placed in a position where the only doctor available to them is allowed an ‘opt-out’ of the treatment they require."

The morning-after pill is available over the counter in Britain, and in the North.

When contacted yesterday, SouthDoc in Tralee said that they could not comment on doctor-patient exchanges as that would breach patient confidentiality.



Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html#ixzz0y1rnJoin

Surely this has to be an illegal act on the part of the doctor in question? I can't believe in 2010 in Ireland that the above could take place. We have an awful long way to go yet.

georgieporgy

Is the Cork Examiner suggesting Kerry girls are so stupid they don't know that sexual intercourse often results in pregnancy?

That's almost racist or something.

Dades

Interesting case, given this thread already ongoing.

Galvasean

Ad that to the list of answers in "Why so passionate?"

strobe

I'm still undecided...

Galvasean

strobe wrote: »

I'm still undecided...

about?

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

about?

About weather or not doctors should be forced by the state to contravene thier personal ethics.

The Big Red Button

strobe wrote: »

About weather or not doctors should be forced by the state to contravene thier personal ethics.

If they cannot overcome their own personal beliefs in order to treat their patients appropriately, then in my opinion they should resign.

Can you imagine if a doctor refused to give a dying patient a blood transfusion because the doctor was a Jehovahs Witness?!

GLaDOS

strobe wrote: »

About weather or not doctors should be forced by the state to contravene thier personal ethics.

To be blunt, of course they should. We wouldn't accept a JW surgeon refusing to use blood transfusions. A doctor's personal feelings shouldn't be an issue if they want to be a doctor.

Edit: Great minds chatterpillar :pac:

Galvasean

chatterpillar wrote: »

Can you imagine if a doctor refused to give a dying patient a blood transfusion because the doctor was a Jehovahs Witness?!

ScienceNerd wrote: »

We wouldn't accept a JW surgeon refusing to use blood transfusions.

Can I ad a +1 (that would be 3 people saying this at the time of writing)

the_syco

Hrm, if this was in AH, I'd advocate the use of a shotgun.

As it isn't, I hope the woman sues the doctor who refused to do their job because of some fairy.

strobe

And if a doctor told to kill and dissect a jewish child (Godwined etc....{but to be fair it was Jehovawined already}) in Warsaw 1940 objected on ethical grounds...they should overcome thier own personal beliefs? Do what they are paid to do and what the state says is right?

Galvasean

strobe wrote: »

And if a doctor told to kill and dissect a jewish child (Godwined etc....) in Warsaw 1940 objected on ethical grounds...they should overcome thier own personal beliefs?

GLaDOS

strobe wrote: »

And if a doctor told to kill and dissect a jewish child (Godwined etc....) in Warsaw 1940 objected on ethical grounds...they should overcome thier own personal beliefs? Do what they are paid to do and what the state says is right?

They should quit as a doctor if that's the medical instructions at the time.

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

Well my problem is with the concept of the state forcing doctors to perform or withhold certain procedures. More like Golden Delicious / Royal Gala vs apples / oranges in my opinion.

Plebs

I don't see what the problem is. I presume the doctor sees that human life begins at conception and therefore to administer the "morning after pill" would be to kill a foetus thereby breaching the Hippocratic oath as well as the laws of the Church. I certainly would have a guilty conscience if I facilitated someone in an unethical and immoral act by prescribing an abortifacient.

Galvasean

I wonder if someone working in a clothes shop could refuse to sell clothes made of more than one kind of fabric becuase Leviticus said they were bad?

Galvasean

Plebs wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is. I presume the doctor sees that human life begins at conception and therefore to administer the "morning after pill" would be to kill a foetus thereby breaching the Hippocratic oath as well as the laws of the Church. I certainly would have a guilty conscience if I facilitated someone in an unethical and immoral act by prescribing an abortifacient.

If it is against your morals then I suggest alternative employment. In other words, don't apply for jobs where you are required to do things you are against morally.

Plebs

Galvasean wrote: »

If it is against your morals then I suggest alternative employment. In other words, don't apply for jobs where you are required to do things you are against morally.

Doctors aren't required to prescribe abortifacients for contraceptive purposes.

GLaDOS

Plebs wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is. I presume the doctor sees that human life begins at conception and therefore to administer the "morning after pill" would be to kill a foetus thereby breaching the Hippocratic oath as well as the laws of the Church. I certainly would have a guilty conscience if I facilitated someone in an unethical and immoral act by prescribing an abortifacient.

Morning after pills prevent conception, or at least implantation (attachment of blastocyst to the womb). They are distinct from an abortion.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Plebs wrote: »

Doctors aren't required to prescribe abortifacients for contraceptive purposes.

I hope you are wrong about that and secondly how do you know it was a one night stand? she could have been raped for all you know

sesna

No doctor or professional should be required to perform procedures which violate their religious faith, especially when alternative treatment is available elsewhere.

Galvasean

Plebs wrote: »

Doctors aren't required to prescribe abortifacients for contraceptive purposes.

They aren't required to supply the morning after pill if that is what their patients need?

Plebs

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I hope you are wrong about that and secondly how do you know it was a one night stand? she could have been raped for all you know

Rape is no justification for the use of an aborifacient.

Galvasean

Plebs wrote: »

Rape is no justification for the use of an aborifacient.

Says you. Of course I do feel a (very long) debate coming on...

strobe

sesna wrote: »

No individual should be required to do anything which violates their individual freedom, regardless of any other factor as long as they are not harming anyone else by thier actions or inaction.

Fixed/mutilated your post.

Galvasean

Ah but Strobe, would forcing someone to have an unwanted pregnency not be considered casing harm?

GLaDOS

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Morning after pills prevent conception, or at least implantation (attachment of blastocyst to the womb). They are distinct from an abortion.

Plebs wrote: »

Rape is no justification for the use of an aborifacient.

It's not an abortion

Plebs

Galvasean wrote: »

Says you. Of course I do feel a (very long) debate coming on...

Yep, this ground has been covered 1,000s of times before...

Galvasean

Plebs wrote: »

Yep, this ground has been covered 1,000s of times before...

We shall agree to disagree then...

Just as well, it's past my bed time.

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah but Strobe, would forcing someone to have an unwanted pregnency not be considered casing harm?

Like I say, I'm undecided, at present. She had the option of going elsewhere. She did go elsewhere. Is forcing the doctor to prevent her pregnancy any better or worse than forcing her to prevent it several hours later by refusing to prescribe for her?

I do think that doctors that refuse to administer any legal treatment should be listed on a register that records the fact or visa versa. The public should have a method of knowing in advance.

aidan24326

sesna wrote: »

No doctor or professional should be required to perform procedures which violate their religious faith, especially when alternative treatment is available elsewhere.

Bullsh1t. Absolute bullsh1t of the highest order.

If someone has strong religious views then don't take up employment in a profession where those religious views can and will be compromised. Any doctor who refuses to prescribe treatment such as the morning after pill on religious grounds deserves to be struck off the medical register imo. It's baffling that this can still happen in Ireland in the year 2010, and that people like you will still defend it.

'Religious freedom' my arse, you're a medical doctor now do your job or find one more suited to your ethical and religious whims.

Galvasean

strobe wrote: »

Like I say, I'm undecided. She had the option of going elsewhere. She did go elsewhere. Is forcing the doctor to prevent her pregnancy any better or worse than forcing her to prevent it several hours later by refusing to prescribe for her?

She had to go to from Kerry to Cork which isn't exactly the same as walking around the corner. The pill also becomes less effective as time passes which is also worth considering.

strobe wrote:

I do think that doctors that refuse to administer any legal treatment should be listed on a register that records the fact or visa versa. The public should have a method of knowing in advance.

While that isn't a bad idea, I still think anyone that refuses to administer such treatment has no business becoming a GP in the first place.

Galvasean

sesna wrote: »

Unfortunately you can't discriminate against someone in employment because of their religious beliefs. If you dont like perhaps you could lobby the Law Reform Commission or your local TD.

I'm pretty sure you can discriminate against them for being unwilling and unable to do their job. (That said, in a similar case in the UK the local medical authorities backed the GP)

sesna wrote:

The doctor referred to an alternative GP who would prescribe for her.

Miles away in another county...


edit: sesna's post (which I am quoting) appears to be gone now. Could someone verify that there was in fact such a post or have I gone completely mad?

WhodahWoodah

The doctor is charging money for their medical skills and opinion. Their private beliefs should be kept to themselves I think. If a doctor is against the morning after pill then they should feel free not to take it themselves. This refusing to prescribe it only serves to discommodate their patient (their patient here being the woman looking for the pill, not the POTENTIAL pregnancy). There is surely no woman in the country who on going for the morning after pill to her doctor, being told no that the doc doesn't prescribe that on religious grounds, is going to just say "Well actually, you're right, I think I'll toss the dice and if I get pregnant I'll just have a baby then". I'd like to know if the refusing doc here still charged the woman for his total lack of help during what was surely a very stressful situation for her.

strobe

Perhaps Galvasean...

This goes straight to the heart of my "no coercion" philosophy so it is somewhat of a grey area in my mind right now. I'll read what people have to say on the matter, and I have come across similar situations before.

I hate things being up in the air but for me that's how they are in this scenario, at least for the time being. To be continued....

aidan24326

sesna wrote: »

Unfortunately you can't discriminate against someone in employment because of their religious beliefs. If you dont like perhaps you could lobby the Law Reform Commission or your local TD. The doctor referred to an alternative GP who would prescribe for her.

I'm aware of that, but this is where religious freedom gets taken too far. Believe me I'm all for anyone being able to practise whatever religion they want in their own good time. Each to their own and all that. But where religious views are allowed to compromise your role as a medical professional, or indeed in any other job, then we have a problem. That that should be allowed to happen is just another example of the totally undeserved deference that religious persuasion is given, and the way that any supposed ethical or moral stance is almost automatically elevated to untouchable status once you attach the overriding label 'religious' to it.

John believes in three-headed fairies? Crazy fool. John believes in them because of his 'religion'?!! All due respect heading his way. That's the problem.

Galvasean

aidan24326 wrote: »

John believes in three-headed fairies? Crazy fool. John believes in them because of his 'religion'?!! All due respect heading his way. That's the problem.

sesna

aidan24326 wrote: »

I'm aware of that, but this is where religious freedom gets taken too far. Believe me I'm all for anyone being able to practise whatever religion they want in their own good time. Each to their own and all that. But where religious views are allowed to compromise your role as a medical professional, or indeed in any other job, then we have a problem. That that should be allowed to happen is just another example of the totally undeserved deference that religious presuasion is given, and the way that any supposed ethical or moral stance is almost automatically elevated to untouchable status once you sttach the overriding label 'religious' to it.

John believes in three-headed fairies? Crazy fool. John believes in them because of his 'religion'?!! All due respect heading his way. That's the problem.

If you don't like it, you should take it up with the Irish Medical Council. The GP was perfectly entitled to do what was done. As for your tirade against religion, you should lobby for a constitutional referendum, but as it currently stands religious freedom is protected in this country.

Also use of an abortifacient is more than just an "ethical whim" the GP had.

I dont believe anyones role was compromised. The GP referred to an alternative doctor in this instance, it's not as if her life was in danger at any point. She had up to 72 hours to get the medication.

Shenshen

Byron85 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html





Surely this has to be an illegal act on the part of the doctor in question? I can't believe in 2010 in Ireland that the above could take place. We have an awful long way to go yet.

I seem to remember that in the US, pharmacies aren't obliged to actually fulfill your prescription for the morning-after pill if they object on religious grounds

I'd love to see the outcry over the Jehova's Witness nurse refusing to do a blood transfusion, but apparently, religious discrimination ok as long as they're limited to women's health... :mad:

Shenshen

sesna wrote: »

No doctor or professional should be required to perform procedures which violate their religious faith, especially when alternative treatment is available elsewhere.

Such as abortions 2 months later in Manchester?

robindch

sesna wrote: »

If you don't like it, you should take it up with the Irish Medical Council. The GP was perfectly entitled to do what was done. As for your tirade against religion, you should lobby for a constitutional referendum, but as it currently stands religious freedom is protected in this country.

My religion says that I don't have to pay taxes and that I must drive on the right-hand side of the road.

Are my rights protected here? Or will the state persecute me for my religious beliefs?

lynski

Why was a doctor working on an out of hours service if they are unwilling to prescribe what i imagine is one of the most common drugs an out of hours service would be asked for?
This country has moved on, I remember this happening in west limerick, in the case of a sexual assault, in the early 90s and we were shocked then that the girl was refused.
That doctor should not be allowed to work with women, where do they draw the line? no pill for the unmarried? no pill at all if it interferes with their god's will? advising women to carry on having babies with their alcoholic feckless abusive husbands? No IVF information? No pain relief for cancer victims, cause they should offer it up?
Name all doctors who will not perform routine service, bet the p**** still charged her the 60 or 70 quid for the privilege of having his 'medical opinion' foisted on her.
BTW a friend of mine drove north a few months ago and bought the morning after pill over the counter for about 30 euros, include the cost of petrol even from Kerry, and it would probably still be cheaper.

Shenshen

sesna wrote: »

If you don't like it, you should take it up with the Irish Medical Council. The GP was perfectly entitled to do what was done. As for your tirade against religion, you should lobby for a constitutional referendum, but as it currently stands religious freedom is protected in this country.

Also use of an abortifacient is more than just an "ethical whim" the GP had.

I dont believe anyones role was compromised. The GP referred to an alternative doctor in this instance, it's not as if her life was in danger at any point. She had up to 72 hours to get the medication.

Religious freedoms only extend until they touch on the personal rights of other people.

People have a right to medical treatment, and a doctor has no right to refuse it on religious grounds.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

My religion says that I don't have to pay taxes and that I must drive on the right-hand side of the road.

Are my rights protected here? Or will the state persecute me for my religious beliefs?

The state will prosecute you if you break the law, and your religious beliefs shouldn't, and won't, protect you.

The doctor concerned is not breaking the law. He is a self-employed individual who is acting within the terms of his contract with the HSE and within the guidelines provided by his relevant professional body.

If you are employed, the situation becomes a bit more tricky. I would see more of a case for protest if the doctor was an employee working in a hospital setting. But for a self-employed guy who is obeying the law, honouring his contract, and following Medical Council guidelines? Using analogies about breaking the law here seems particularly inappropriate.

nozzferrahhtoo

sesna wrote: »

No doctor or professional should be required to perform procedures which violate their religious faith, especially when alternative treatment is available elsewhere.

I am always a little nervous about coming down too hard on all doctors for this. For me it should depend on who the doctor works for as to whether I agree or disagree with the above.

If the doctor works for a state run organisation, facility, hospital etc then of course he should not be allowed refuse to give the morning after pill on religious grounds. He was hired by an employer to do a job, he signed a contract saying he would do that job, and if he can not do his job then he should be fired instantly. He should have made his employer aware of the religious conflict before being hired. A muslim, for example, would not get away with signing up to be a chef in a restaurant, then on day 1 pointing out "oh by the way I will be refusing to work with pork, didn't I mention?".

However if a doctor opens their own private practise, or a muslim opens their own restaurant then why should he be forced to perform a service he does not want to perform? If I start any business selling a service or goods, no one comes along and forces me to provide goods or services that I do not want to provide. If a guy who owns an auto garage tomorrow decides never to work on another German car, who are we to force him for example? It is HIS business and he can choose to make choices that will ruin his business and reduce his customer base all he likes.

In these cases I just hope natural selection does it’s work. People will learn that Doctor X does not provide services that they want, so they go to Doctor Y instead and I hope Doctor X goes out of business naturally because no one wants a doctor that does not provide the full services.

oeb

I don't really have too much of a problem with a doctor objecting to carrying out a treatment on religious grounds (And I say this as an atheist, and borderline anti-theist). I do believe that this should be made clear to patients ahead of time though. Especially when they do not offer any alternative solution.

Where I have a major problem though, is an out of hours service like Southdoc including a doctor who will refuse to provide a service like this.

For those that don't know, Southdoc are a co-op of doctors that operate in Cork and Kerry. They provide an out of hours service. IE if you need a doctor in the middle of the night or on a Sunday or some other time when your local GP's office would be closed, then you phone them. For an area the size of Tralee, they would only have one doctor on call at any specific time, so if they object to providing a legal service on religious grounds it's not like you can just call to another local GP, they are generally the only GP on call in the town.

drkpower

Typical......uou wait ages for a doctor/ethic thread to pop up & then 3 come along at once.....

Just to clarify a couple of things: As ethics currently stand, it is perefectly ethical for a doctor to refuse to treat on religous (or any other) grounds as long as it is not an 'emergency' and as long as an appropriate referral is made. That stands whether a doc is self employed, employed by the state or employed in private practice. What is classed as an 'emergency' is up for debate and the MAP may very well class as such (especially if the woman concerned was closer to the 72 hours post-intercourse when the doc refused her).

As to whether it should be ethical, while i have a lot of sympathy for the view expressed here that a doc should be forced to treat all people regardless of their own religious concerns, you might have a think of the flip side before casting judgment:

The classical situation is where a surgeon is faced (in an elective context)with a Jehovahs Witness patient who needs a serious operation and states their intention to refuse a transfusion if needed. Should that doctor be obliged to perform the procedure in the knowledge that they will be obliged to allow the patient to die should they require a transfusion? Or should they be allowed to transfer the patient to an alternative suitably qualified practitioner with no detriment to the patient? Personally I think they should be entitled to transfer. And before you decide, you might realise that being put in that situation is incredibly traumatic for most health professionals.

Of course if the treatment is needed on an emergency basis or if there is no alternative suitably qualified practitioner, then the doctor should be obliged to treat; but otherwise, no.

kmick

If I were a woman I would have one of these pills in my handbag just in case.

super_furry

kmick wrote: »

If I were a woman I would have one of these pills in my handbag just in case.

Which you could do if they weren't presciption only. As it stands, you have to get a doctor's persmission to buy them.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In these cases I just hope natural selection does it’s work. People will learn that Doctor X does not provide services that they want, so they go to Doctor Y instead and I hope Doctor X goes out of business naturally because no one wants a doctor that does not provide the full services.

The problem with this approach is that the doctor-patient relationship is not a typical contracting situation. Many many patients attending are relatively unfamiliar with their doctor and attend on a relatively urgent basis (not an emergency per se, but they are concerned and require prompt treatment). In the context of when people choose to attend their doctor, expecting them to research their GPs and Hospitals in the manner you suggest is too onerous on the patient. The doctor-patient situation warrants more general rules of application to all and those rules should put the onus on the doctor to arrange a referral to another doctor where one doctor cant provide the required treatment, ensuring that there is as little detriment to the patient as possible.