Doctor refuses to prescribe the pill on religious grounds

Tiddlypeeps

I just read this article written for the UL student paper. It discusses how the author was refused the pill by her family doctor.

http://irishstudentleftonline.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/mixing-moralism-with-medicine-i-was-refused-the-pill-from-my-family-doctor/

Are doctors actually allowed to refuse treatment to a patient on religious grounds?

I find it shocking that this sort of thing can still happen. I really hope this is a very rare occurrence

lazygal

Of course a doctor can refuse. Its a standard rule in most countries that medics don't have to do procedures etc that conflict with their beliefs. I'd find another doctor. There was a lengthy thread in The Ladies Lounge about this very issue. Pharmacists are also under no obligation to dispense contraception.

doctoremma

The ONLY inkling of disagreement with the author is:

He didn’t seem to understand the fact that this is the 21st century and my contraception and my relationship status are two completely unrelated things.

I think most doctors prescribing the pill would try to ascertain your relationship status in order to discuss if the pill is the most appropriate type of contraception for you. If you are not in a monogamous relationship, then condoms might be advised (on top of or instead of), to offer protection against STDs. The author isn't protecting herself very well if she has multiple partners and uses only the pill.

But yeah, the rest is rubbish. I don't think any doctor should impose their own moral standards on their patients. In the UK, we have religious exemption for abortion, as long as you recommend someone else in the practice (or refer to a suitable clinic) that will sanction it. Nonsense.

Tiddlypeeps

lazygal wrote: »

Of course a doctor can refuse. Its a standard rule in most countries that medics don't have to do procedures etc that conflict with their beliefs. I'd find another doctor. There was a lengthy thread in The Ladies Lounge about this very issue. Pharmacists are also under no obligation to dispense contraception.

What if all the doctors in an area have the same belief system and refuse?

What if all the doctors/nurses in a hospital at a particular time happened to be Jahovas Witnesses and they refused to offer treatments like blood transfusions etc. People would die. That's a tad more serious than the pill but operates under the same logic.

lazygal

I'm just a little amused at the shock of the author. I would have expected most college age people to know doctors aren't obliged to prescribe the pill. As I said, this is something that's part of medical practice in most countries. A friend of mine working in NYC encountered the same issue. Its not an Irish issue.

lazygal

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

What if all the doctors in an area have the same belief system and refuse?

What if all the doctors/nurses in a hospital at a particular time happened to be Jahovas Witnesses and they refused to offer treatments like blood transfusions etc. People would die. That's a tad more serious than the pill but operates under the same logic.

Then you've to go elsewhere, but you are entitled to be referred on. It is not something that only happens in Ireland.

Tiddlypeeps

lazygal wrote: »

I'm just a little amused at the shock of the author. I would have expected most college age people to know doctors aren't obliged to prescribe the pill. As I said, this is something that's part of medical practice in most countries. A friend of mine working in NYC encountered the same issue. Its not an Irish issue.

I'm in my mid 20's and I was shocked to hear about it. Not sure why that would amuse you

lazygal

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I'm in my mid 20's and I was shocked to hear about it. Not sure why that would amuse you

Because it a well known rule. I don't know anyone who isn't aware of the right of doctors to refuse prescriptions or other medical treatment based on their moral/ethical objections. Sure the recent abortion debate brought it to the fore. I'm wondering why this student thinks she's an exceptional case-stuff like this was reported when I was in college years ago, its not some new issue.

Cabaal

Where does the religious nonsense influencing the doctors treatments and helping of patients end though?

- What if a Jehovah's Witnesses Doctor refuses to carry out a blood transfusion.
- Muslim doctor refuses to even talk to a women patient
- A Catholic GP refuses to treat or even see a gay/lesbian/bisexual

Tiddlypeeps

lazygal wrote: »

Then you've to go elsewhere, but you are entitled to be referred on. It is not something that only happens in Ireland.

How can you go elsewhere if you are dead. If you've lost more than half your blood in an accident and are in a hospital surrounded by Jahovas Witnesses scractching their heads then there isn't gonna be much time for you to be referred elsewhere.

It's probably more relevant with abortions in Ireland now that the X case has been legislated for. I can imagine it wouldn't be uncommon to be in a hospital where most/all of the surgeons are morally against the idea given how the medical council voted on the issue before the legislation.

I think a system that could allow that kind of scenario to occur is just plain wrong. A person could die waiting for a non religious doctor to help them.

What does it not only happening in Ireland make it any less wrong? Just because it happens in the US it's somehow ok? They have more religious fanatics than we do, not sure why you would use them as a moral compass of what is right

Tiddlypeeps

lazygal wrote: »

Because it a well known rule. I don't know anyone who isn't aware of the right of doctors to refuse prescriptions or other medical treatment based on their moral/ethical objections. Sure the recent abortion debate brought it to the fore. I'm wondering why this student thinks she's an exceptional case-stuff like this was reported when I was in college years ago, its not some new issue.

Just because something is obvious to you does not mean it is something that everybody knows.

lazygal

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Just because something is obvious to you does not mean it is something that everybody knows.

Not just me who knows it - this was common knowledge when I was a teenager and people started going on the pill. One GP didn't prescribe it, the others did. It also came up in college, as I said, with articles just like the one in the link written in college papers.

Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't widely known by others.

Tiddlypeeps

lazygal wrote: »

Not just me who knows it - this was common knowledge when I was a teenager and people started going on the pill. One GP didn't prescribe it, the others did. It also came up in college, as I said, with articles just like the one in the link written in college papers.

Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't widely known by others.

You didn't dispute my point.

Geomy

Cabaal wrote: »

Where does the religious nonsense influencing the doctors treatments and helping of patients end though?

- What if a Jehovah's Witnesses Doctor refuses to carry out a blood transfusion.
- Muslim doctor refuses to even talk to a women patient
- A Catholic GP refuses to treat or even see a gay/lesbian/bisexual

I think you're being a bit too pedantic, I had a friend who was dying in hospital he had a female Muslim nurse who changed him, cleand him, shoved various tube's up and down various part's of his anatomy.
He used to have banter with her and she had a good sense of humour. ..

My orthopaedic surgeon was Muslim, he didn't turn to powder when I had a cross on my neck. ..

Catholic doctors refusing to treat gays, lesbians, and bisexuals...

Im sure it probably happens, but very rarely. ...

Oh you guyyyyss.....

GerB40

lazygal wrote: »

Not just me who knows it - this was common knowledge when I was a teenager and people started going on the pill. One GP didn't prescribe it, the others did. It also came up in college, as I said, with articles just like the one in the link written in college papers.

Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't widely known by others.

I think the reason people don't know that it's up to the doctor is because it's not really an issue anymore. Most people would just expect the doctor to prescribe the pill without a lecture on morality..

Cabaal

Geomy wrote: »

I think you're being a bit too pedantic, I had a friend who was dying in hospital he had a female Muslim nurse who changed him, cleand him, shoved various tube's up and down various part's of his anatomy.
He used to have banter with her and she had a good sense of humour. ..

My orthopaedic surgeon was Muslim, he didn't turn to powder when I had a cross on my neck. ..

I merely giving examples which could potentially happen, the same as a catholic doctor refusing to issue thew pill.

Sure most catholic (they likely select it on the census) GP's likely have no issue prescribing it, same as Muslims treating you and all that,

But bottom line is, a doctor using their religion as an excuse not to treat/deal with patients is bang out of order.

Catholic doctors refusing to treat gays, lesbians, and bisexuals...

Im sure it probably happens, but very rarely. ...

Not sure about GP's, but its a known fact that the blood transfusion board won't take blood from gay men....though apparently religion has nothing to do with this and instead its based on risk of AIDS. As if the rest of the population is immune to AIDS.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gay-man-alleges-prejudice-by-blood-bank-1.1505419

Last time i checked, a man and women having sex unprotected can just as easily catch STI's, AIDS etc, so why gay men are exempt from blood transfusions is a little odd.

You'd imagine they'd have to test blood anyway to be sure regardless of who donates it, especially given their track record of infecting people in the past with Hepatitis C back in the 90's.

lazygal

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

You didn't dispute my point.

I responded to that post in particular on this somehow being newsworthy.

Is the place coming down with Jehovah's witnesses or something, all refusing blood transfusions left, right and centre? Doctors of all creeds and none work in hospitals and communities every day and I don't see this as something that'll merit a huge debate. A doctor in the UK, or France, or most other countries can refuse the pill, or other treatment, but its a pragmatic response (one I can understand but not necessarily agree with) to how people of faith can provide medical services.

Of all the battles to fight over in the health service, this is not one I'm gearing up for.

Tiddlypeeps

You said:

lazygal wrote: »

I'm wondering why this student thinks she's an exceptional case

I responded by pointing out that just because you think something is common knowledge does not mean it's something everybody knows. Assuming she knew this was a thing but expected to be an exception is just a silly comment to make. Just because you know something and think it is obvious does not mean it is information that everybody else is exposed to at the same level.

lazygal wrote: »

I responded to that post in particular on this somehow being newsworthy.

Is the place coming down with Jehovah's witnesses or something, all refusing blood transfusions left, right and centre? Doctors of all creeds and none work in hospitals and communities every day and I don't see this as something that'll merit a huge debate. A doctor in the UK, or France, or most other countries can refuse the pill, or other treatment, but its a pragmatic response (one I can understand but not necessarily agree with) to how people of faith can provide medical services.

Of all the battles to fight over in the health service, this is not one I'm gearing up for.

Why does it matter if you think it is newsworthy or not. If you don't care then why are you commenting at all on the discussion

Weather you care or not has no relevance on how this effects other people. I am disgusted thinking about how a teenage girl might react if she was faced with the same wall when visiting her GP. In rural areas visiting another GP isn't often an option, especially for a teenager who can't drive and would have to explain to her parents why she needs to go to the GP in the next town over.

The fact that plenty of doctors with various creeds don't act on them in their treatment does not negate the fact that there are those who do.

lazygal

It's not that I don't care - its that I'm genuinely surprised people didn't know this is a standard practice for medical practitioners not just in Ireland but a lot of other countries. I guess people aren't as well informed as I thought they might be, and its a bit of an eye opener, especially as there's been an almost identical discussion taking place on this issue in the Ladies' Lounge, as I said.

Gbear

The way I see it, if it's on behalf of the state then the doctor should not have a choice - they should have to carry out their duties or find a new job.

If it's on behalf of a private clinic then it should be down to the clinic whether they're happy with that sort of performance. If it goes against the clinic's ethos they should be entitled to sack them (as they should be entitled to sack them if they do prescribe the Pill and the clinic has a Catholic ethos).
If that's the way the clinic is run then it should be down to the patient to seek an alternative.

lazygal

Fertility clinics such as NAPRO will only treat married couples. Its a private company and operates a Catholic ethos so no IVF, but doesn't refuse to treat non Catholics. Should it be obliged to treat anyone who seeks treatment, even though its a private operator? Should it be obliged to provide IVF as its a legitimate treatment for infertility, if a patient wants it, despite its ethos as a private company?

kylith

GerB40 wrote: »

I think the reason people don't know that it's up to the doctor is because it's not really an issue anymore. Most people would just expect the doctor to prescribe the pill without a lecture on morality..

I had no idea it was at their discretion until I saw the thread in TLL. No-one ever told me that it might be a problem and no doctor ever refused to prescribe it for me.

Tiddlypeeps

lazygal wrote: »

Fertility clinics such as NAPRO will only treat married couples. Its a private company and operates a Catholic ethos so no IVF, but doesn't refuse to treat non Catholics. Should it be obliged to treat anyone who seeks treatment, even though its a private operator? Should it be obliged to provide IVF as its a legitimate treatment for infertility, if a patient wants it, despite its ethos as a private company?

If an organisation doesn't receive any of it's funding from the government then it should be free to do whatever it likes within the bounds of the law.

Although technically private organisations GP's receive government funding to operate. So I don't believe they should be allowed to refuse treatment to a patient on religious grounds.

username123

kylith wrote: »

I had no idea it was at their discretion until I saw the thread in TLL. No-one ever told me that it might be a problem and no doctor ever refused to prescribe it for me.

Same. I was totally shocked when I read that thread in tLL. Never heard of it before then.

Malari

kylith wrote: »

I had no idea it was at their discretion until I saw the thread in TLL. No-one ever told me that it might be a problem and no doctor ever refused to prescribe it for me.

Me either actually. I've never had an issue from various different doctors.

And I probably would have assumed if they did refuse a prescription on religious grounds that it wasn't really allowed. I didn't know they had that right.

username123

Malari wrote: »

I didn't know they had that right.

I didn't know doctors could behave as Morality Police when it came to dispensing legal medication.

Malari

username123 wrote: »

I didn't know doctors could behave as Morality Police when it came to dispensing legal medication.

I think this is what the girl in the original story was really objecting to - she was being lectured on her sexual habits, regardless of health issues. If the GP had just said that he wouldn't prescribe on religious grounds and referred her elsewhere it wouldn't have been such an issue.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Fertility clinics such as NAPRO will only treat married couples. Its a private company and operates a Catholic ethos so no IVF, but doesn't refuse to treat non Catholics. Should it be obliged to treat anyone who seeks treatment, even though its a private operator? Should it be obliged to provide IVF as its a legitimate treatment for infertility, if a patient wants it, despite its ethos as a private company?

If they provide a service they should be made provide it to the people that want it, ethos doesn't come into it imho

in fairness, if they won't treat non-married couples this isn't a massive jump to not treating gay couples (who have a civil marriage/marriage), couples who are married who are black, asian etc

Its a case of them just choosing who they don't like

Morag

Reading the article it seemed to me that if she has of been in a relationship of several months that the dr may have perscribed the pill, so it seems more a moralistic then religious reason. Some GPs certain seem to think that young women should wait until a relationship starts and then go and get the pill and abstain until they are covered by it.

Tiddlypeeps

Morag wrote: »

Reading the article it seemed to me that if she has of been in a relationship of several months that the dr may have perscribed the pill, so it seems more a moralistic then religious reason. Some GPs certain seem to think that young women should wait until a relationship starts and then go and get the pill and abstain until they are covered by it.

She said the doctor assumed she had a boyfriend. I may have taken it up wrong but I picked up that the doctors reasons for not prescribing the pill were that her and her boyfriend weren't married.

He then went on to declare that “co habiting” (he made little quotation marks with his hands) couples had a higher rate of break ups than married couples. He also threw in the fact that ‘fellas’ often experience so much they don’t know what to settle for.[\Quote]

eyescreamcone

Morag wrote: »

Reading the article it seemed to me that if she has of been in a relationship of several months that the dr may have perscribed the pill, so it seems more a moralistic then religious reason. Some GPs certain seem to think that young women should wait until a relationship starts and then go and get the pill and abstain until they are covered by it.

Doctors should get off their high horse and do what they are told/paid to do.

If a doctor refused a member of my family the pill for a moral/religious reason I wouldn't go to him again for any reason.
Also, I wouldn't pay him for that visit obviously.
If enough people stopped paying him, then he wouldn't be long changing his tune.

Doctors are not demi-gods administering healing and moralistic advice to us peasants.
They are only employees of the guy with money in his pocket.

kylith

If only she'd thought to say something along the lines of 'and how else do you expect me to regulate my periods?'

The pill does more than stop you getting pregnant.

ShooterSF

lazygal wrote: »

Fertility clinics such as NAPRO will only treat married couples. Its a private company and operates a Catholic ethos so no IVF, but doesn't refuse to treat non Catholics. Should it be obliged to treat anyone who seeks treatment, even though its a private operator? Should it be obliged to provide IVF as its a legitimate treatment for infertility, if a patient wants it, despite its ethos as a private company?

Discrimination against people on marriage grounds is illegal in this country. Private company or not...

eyescreamcone

Or...
Would you prefer if I came back in here in a few weeks looking for an abortion?!

kylith

ShooterSF wrote: »

Discrimination against people on marriage grounds is illegal in this country. Private company or not...

But they have an ethos!

swampgas

kylith wrote: »

But they have an ethos!

That word makes me see red. It's now a fancy word for officially sanctioned prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination.

Morag

kylith wrote: »

If only she'd thought to say something along the lines of 'and how else do you expect me to regulate my periods?'

The pill does more than stop you getting pregnant.

Which was what it was prescribed for before it was legal to prescribe it as a contraceptive, but should women have to lie to their drs to get contraceptives in this day and age?

kylith

Morag wrote: »

Which was what it was prescribed for before it was legal to prescribe it as a contraceptive, but should women have to lie to their drs to get contraceptives in this day and age?

Of course they shouldn't, and if it were me (me now, not 17 year old me starting taking the pill) I would have told him where to shove his medical degree before informing everyone I met of what an absolute wanker he was.

But for young people who might be a bit shy and nervous it's well to remember that the pill has other uses, from helping with acne to regulating periods, and that if your doctor starts to give you a lecture about sexual morality telling them that you've just been diagnosed with PCOS and your usual doctor prescribed the pill to regulate your periods isn't a crime. Just like our mothers used to lie and say they were getting married.

lazygal

ShooterSF wrote: »

Discrimination against people on marriage grounds is illegal in this country. Private company or not...

Well, this case is interesting: http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/kfkfqlcweygb/

I don't know if the couple went to the Supreme Court or not.

eyescreamcone

lazygal wrote: »

Well, this case is interesting: http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/kfkfqlcweygb/

I don't know if the couple went to the Supreme Court or not.

I love the quote from somone not very important from the not very important Iona Institute at the end of the above link.



The Iona Institue for Religious Nutjobs and ****.
They are SF to the RCCs IRA.

gaynorvader

Does anyone know why the pill is prescription only? Does it have particularly dangerous side-effects or addictive qualities?

Tiddlypeeps

gaynorvader wrote: »

Does anyone know why the pill is prescription only? Does it have particularly dangerous side-effects or addictive qualities?

I assume it's because it requires a good deal of expertise and experience to get the right fit for each person. There are many types of pill and forms of contraception, there is no one size fits all so it's probably best that a professional help with the process.

That being said it should probably be available over the counter but with a warning issued from the pharmacist that if you have never been on the pill before it's best advised you see a doctor first. Sort of like the warnings they give with handing out codine. Because it's kinda silly that you need to keep going back to the gp for repeat prescriptions once you have found what works for you.

There are some fairly tenuous links to some cancers and blood clots but I'm not sure there is a whole lot of substance to those links.

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

Does anyone know why the pill is prescription only? Does it have particularly dangerous side-effects or addictive qualities?

There can be problems with blood clots in the legs or allergic reactions if you haven't taken a particular one before, but I think that once you've been on it for a few years you should be able to register with a pharmacy and get it OTC. I've been on it for about 15 years and, though I've been on the medical card recently, I've shelled out hundreds and hundreds of pounds and euros for the doctor to do no more than weigh me, take my blood pressure, and give me a prescription. It's nothing a pharmacist couldn't do.

gaynorvader

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I assume it's because it requires a good deal of expertise and experience to get the right fit for each person. There are many types of pill and forms of contraception, there is no one size fits all so it's probably best that a professional help with the process.

That being said it should probably be available over the counter but with a warning issued from the pharmacist that if you have never been on the pill before it's best advised you see a doctor first. Sort of like the warnings they give with handing out codine. Because it's kinda silly that you need to keep going back to the gp for repeat prescriptions once you have found what works for you.

There are some fairly tenuous links to some cancers and blood clots but I'm not sure there is a whole lot of substance to those links.

kylith wrote: »

There can be problems with blood clots in the legs or allergic reactions if you haven't taken a particular one before, but I think that once you've been on it for a few years you should be able to register with a pharmacy and get it OTC. I've been on it for about 15 years and, though I've been on the medical card recently, I've shelled out hundreds and hundreds of pounds and euros for the doctor to do no more than weigh me, take my blood pressure, and give me a prescription. It's nothing a pharmacist couldn't do.

Seems about as dangerous as aspirin (thins the blood, possibly leading to heart troubles) or penicillin (allergies). Then again, I'm not wholly educated on the subject.

Tiddlypeeps

gaynorvader wrote: »

Seems about as dangerous as aspirin (thins the blood, possibly leading to heart troubles) or penicillin (allergies). Then again, I'm not wholly educated on the subject.

As I said I don't think it's particularly dangerous it's just best to have some solid advice when choosing what to go for. For example if a patient has a history of depression then most pills have a good chance of making that worse. If a person is overweight and trying to do something about it then there are some pills that are best avoided because weight gain is a common side effect. etc

Nothing super dangerous but it certainly helps to have someone informed help you with the decision. Although now that I think about it I'm not sure why that needs to be a doctor at all, a pharmacist is probably just as qualified to deal with that as a doctor.

gaynorvader

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

As I said I don't think it's particularly dangerous it's just best to have some solid advice when choosing what to go for. For example if a patient has a history of depression then most pills have a good chance of making that worse. If a person is overweight and trying to do something about it then there are some pills that are best avoided because weight gain is a common side effect. etc

Nothing super dangerous but it certainly helps to have someone informed help you with the decision. Although now that I think about it I'm not sure why that needs to be a doctor at all, a pharmacist is probably just as qualified to deal with that as a doctor.

Or an insert?

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

Seems about as dangerous as aspirin (thins the blood, possibly leading to heart troubles) or penicillin (allergies). Then again, I'm not wholly educated on the subject.

Could be a bit more dangerous than aspirin! Friend of mine once inadvertently left a packet within reach of her female terrier, who trashed the lot and then didn't come into heat again for two years....(do not try this at home folks, but it does make you wonder why there's no contraceptive injection for dogs?)

Tiddlypeeps

Obliq wrote: »

Could be a bit more dangerous than aspirin! Friend of mine once inadvertently left a packet within reach of her female terrier, who trashed the lot and then didn't come into heat again for two years....(do not try this at home folks, but it does make you wonder why there's no contraceptive injection for dogs?)

I'm not sure how this shows it's more dangerous than aspirin. If a small dog ate a packed of aspirin they would probably die.

kylith

Obliq wrote: »

Could be a bit more dangerous than aspirin! Friend of mine once inadvertently left a packet within reach of her female terrier, who trashed the lot and then didn't come into heat again for two years....(do not try this at home folks, but it does make you wonder why there's no contraceptive injection for dogs?)

There is, for males anyway. A guy I know in the UK has his male chemically neutered because he shows his dogs but his male dog is a giant breed and his female dog is a terrier. You can imagine what'd happen if the male decided to have a go.

eyescreamcone

A lot of the time the doctors require that drugs remain prescribed in order to beef up their own earnings. Easy money for little work.

Obliq

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I'm not sure how this shows it's more dangerous than aspirin. If a small dog ate a packed of aspirin they would probably die.

Yes, ok. It doesn't. Just wanted to tell you