Author Topic: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons  (Read 9653 times)

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19326
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2007, 06:03:18 PM »

]


  Well, that goes along with my feelings that people are not given all the information on a lot of things.   Unless I was seeing a doctor in a "Catholic" hospital where I might expect that certain beliefs are going to be upheld, I would expect to get all the information.  If the doctor was not comfortable prescribing or doing something they could refer me to someone else.  But to withhold INFORMATION on options based on YOUR beliefs is not right.  If I go into an emergency room or make an appointment with a private practice physician that gives no inclination that the medicine practiced will be based on religious beliefs, then I expect ALL the information.





 If the abortion pill was an option but he wasn't willing to give it, yes, he should have informed her of the option so she could decide herself and gotten her another doc but he shouldn't be forced to prescribe it IMO.
R

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19326
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2007, 06:11:29 PM »
I would agree with the statement that he shouldn't be in that type of practice, but I'm assuming that he's an emergency doc, therefore sees all types of cases.  In this case, he could have deferred to another doc on call.  But the article doesn't say if that was an option or not. 

agree......



R

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19326
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2007, 06:12:16 PM »
I could have done... but I have to treat her like shit because i'm sick of the countless PM's I get daily from her asking for sex... :-\

I'm just fucking sick of it STella! >:(

I'm sorry, I'll try to control myself :P
R

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2007, 09:12:57 PM »
  Long Article so here is the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/wid/11915773/

  Should Drs. be allowed to refuse treatment because of their personal religious beliefs?   

   Should there be laws concerning what they can or can't refuse?  (IE: they could refuse to do abortions, but can't refuse to prescribe birth control)


1.  Yes.  They ought to just get another doctor who can give the patient what he or she wants.  The doctor in this news story should simply have referred the patient instead of telling the woman "no." 

2.  Not necessarily.  Doctors are already required to treat anyone who shows up with a medical emergency (anti-patient dumping laws).  Maybe they need rules, laws, etc. that require a doctor to simply step aside and refer the patient to someone else so long as there is no adverse impact on the woman. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2007, 09:14:33 PM »
Haven't read the article, ...but my take is that that was inexcuseable.

His license should be taken away.

 ::)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2007, 09:15:47 PM »

 If the abortion pill was an option but he wasn't willing to give it, yes, he should have informed her of the option so she could decide herself and gotten her another doc but he shouldn't be forced to prescribe it IMO.


Yep.  I agree.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2007, 10:42:07 PM »

 If the abortion pill was an option but he wasn't willing to give it, yes, he should have informed her of the option so she could decide herself and gotten her another doc but he shouldn't be forced to prescribe it IMO.


STella, Emergency contraception IS NOT an abortion pill!

It does not abort a fetus. It prevents pregnancy.

I luv ya STella, ...but sometimes, ... you can be sooo...  :-X  &$%##&%#^%#^%#*^*!!!!
w

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2007, 11:06:08 PM »
::)

No need to roll your eyes Beach. I got the just of it. A rape victim requests emergency contraception, and the doctor refuses to prescribe it to her on the basis of "his" religion. ??? What more is there to read? and what purpose would it serve? My blood was already simmering, ...no need for it to get to a full boil. That's pretty cut n' dry IMO. If there is some important nuance I'm missing by not having read that story, ...by all means, ...feel free to enlighten me.
w

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2007, 07:51:29 AM »

 If the abortion pill was an option but he wasn't willing to give it, yes, he should have informed her of the option so she could decide herself and gotten her another doc but he shouldn't be forced to prescribe it IMO.


I agree with that.  He,or any doctor, should not be forced to prescribe or do something against their beliefs, but they should refer them to another doctor without judgement or hassle.  It's the same as a judge recusing himself from a case. He should of handed it over to someone else.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2007, 10:58:54 AM »
No need to roll your eyes Beach. I got the just of it. A rape victim requests emergency contraception, and the doctor refuses to prescribe it to her on the basis of "his" religion. ??? What more is there to read? and what purpose would it serve? My blood was already simmering, ...no need for it to get to a full boil. That's pretty cut n' dry IMO. If there is some important nuance I'm missing by not having read that story, ...by all means, ...feel free to enlighten me.

You got the gist of what?  His side of the story?  If you would have read the article, you would have seen this:  "(When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)" 

You concluded a doctor should have his license taken away based on the headline of a story that you didn't read, where the story contains no comments from the doctor.

And what specific law or rule did he violate that would allow his medical license to be taken away?   

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19326
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2007, 12:40:00 PM »
STella, Emergency contraception IS NOT an abortion pill!

It does not abort a fetus. It prevents pregnancy.

I luv ya STella, ...but sometimes, ... you can be sooo...  :-X  &$%##&%#^%#^%#*^*!!!!
I love you too Jag :) but it seems that even the medical community differs on opinions re: that pill (that being said I've read it can both abort a fertilized egg AND prevent pregnancy).


I'll just bold the parts to read if you don't want to read all of the articles.   2 articles from both sides



STATEMENT OF CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE

The Morning After Pill (MAP)

The MAP is a multiple dose of an oral contraceptive. The MAP may prevent ovulation or, if fertilization has occurred, it may ruin the implantation of a newly conceived human being. It is important that the potential for post- fertilization effects be communicated to patients and health-care providers, as many consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization.

The common description of the MAP as emergency contraception fails to accurately describe its abortifacient action and is misleading the public. The confusion is aggravated by the current attempt to re-define pregnancy as occurring after implantation. It is a basic fact of human embryology that life begins at conception.

Impact of MAP Use

Manufacturers have greatly reduced the hormone content of oral contraceptives due to serious side effects and health risks. Now women are being encouraged to use these same pills, in multiple doses, as post- coital "contraception." The potential long-term impact of these high hormone doses, especially when used repeatedly, is worrisome and not being adequately addressed. The effect of the drug on children who survive is also a cause for concern.

The policy to make the morning-after-pill available without a doctor's prescription puts women and girls at higher risk for disease and sexual health problems. Physical and clinical examination by a physician are essential to good healthcare: to counsel patients and determine sexually- transmitted diseases, abusive relationships and related health issues.

Obviously increased access to MAP will increase use. The 1998-99 annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America showed an 83.5% increase in "emergency contraception (EC) clients". Seventy-eight of its 132 affiliates "offered EC kits to keep at home 'just in case'." Manufacturers stress that the MAP is not intended for repetitive use but offer no realistic plan to prevent this. In Asia, repetitive MAP use (and health consequences) have become commonplace, and health authorities there have become concerned.

Conscience Rights

A related issue raised by increased MAP demand is that of conscientious objection. Our recent correspondence with provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons indicates that, in general, regulating bodies agree that physicians do not have a professional obligation to refer a patient for an abortion. This principle must also apply to the prescription of abortifacients, where referral would violate the conscience and medical good judgement of the physician.

Canadian Physicians for Life affirms the Hippocratic tradition in medicine. We are dedicated to the respect and ethical treatment of every human being, regardless of age or infirmity. Those who hold these principles must not be pressured to act contrary to them as they are foundational to the integrity of our profession and the trust of the public.

Informed Decision Making

Any policy that morally troublesome issues need only be referred to a colleague is oblivious to the principled objections of pro-life physicians. Pro- life practitioners are not merely refusing to prescribe a type of medication but are dedicated to helping patients make fully informed decisions about their health.

The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association requires physicians to "inform a patient when their personal morality would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants." We suggest that doctors should be required to inform patients when pro-abortion beliefs may bias their approach to a pregnancy, reflecting the same principles expected of pro-life doctors. In other words, doctors who rank unborn human lives as disposable and who believe that abortion does not cause unacceptable harm to women should be expected to inform the patient of this bias during the counselling process.

Canadians are not being well informed due to the media tendency to ignore or misrepresent the facts about the Morning After Pill.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information: Canadian Physicians for Life

________________________ ________________________ ________

Morning-after pill: Emergency birth control (from Mayo Clinic site)
 
What can you tell me about the morning-after pill? How does it work?
- No name / No state given
   Mayo Clinic breast-health specialist Sandhya Pruthi, M.D., and colleagues answer select questions from readers.
Answer
The morning-after pill — a form of emergency birth control — is used to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant after she has had unprotected vaginal intercourse. Morning-after pills are generally considered safe, but many women are unaware that they exist. Here's how the morning-after pill works.

Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse.
Instead, it occurs as long as several days later, after ovulation. During the time between intercourse and conception, sperm continue to travel through the fallopian tube until the egg appears. So taking emergency birth control the "morning after" isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.

The active ingredients in morning-after pills are similar to those in birth control pills, except in higher doses. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, progestin (Plan B), and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilized by sperm.

The morning-after pill is designed to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse with a second dose taken 12 hours later. Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue and headache. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the morning-after pill is 80 percent effective in preventing pregnancy after a single act of unprotected sex.

Morning-after pills aren't the same thing as the so-called abortion pill, or mifepristone (Mifeprex). Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one that has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.

Plan B is available to women 18 years and older without a prescription at most pharmacies. Women must show proof of age to purchase Plan B. For women 17 years old and younger, Plan B is available with a doctor's prescription.




Also, I find this sentence interesting from the Mayo site: 
Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse.


Rarely doesn't mean never :-\



That all being said I believe all babies that die go directly to heaven.
R

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2007, 12:50:19 PM »
I personally am not for abortion, especially as a means of birth control from careless behavior.  But at 72 hours there is still nothing more than a clump of cells that have not even started to differentiate into what parts of the body they will become.   

   And taking into consideration that she went to the hospital immediately following her rape, it is really hard to call that a "baby" yet, IMO.   I would much rather have someone take the EC rather than wait 2 months and have an abortion.
  :-\

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2007, 11:10:37 AM »
The morning-after pill — a form of emergency birth control — is used to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant after she has had unprotected vaginal intercourse. Morning-after pills are generally considered safe, but many women are unaware that they exist. Here's how the morning-after pill works.

Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse.
Instead, it occurs as long as several days later, after ovulation. During the time between intercourse and conception, sperm continue to travel through the fallopian tube until the egg appears. So taking emergency birth control the "morning after" isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.

The active ingredients in morning-after pills are similar to those in birth control pills, except in higher doses. Some morning-after pills contain only one hormone, progestin (Plan B), and others contain two, progestin and estrogen. Progestin prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus (implantation). Estrogen stops the ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation) that can be fertilized by sperm.

The morning-after pill is designed to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse with a second dose taken 12 hours later. Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue and headache. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the morning-after pill is 80 percent effective in preventing pregnancy after a single act of unprotected sex.

Morning-after pills aren't the same thing as the so-called abortion pill, or mifepristone (Mifeprex). Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one that has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.

Plan B is available to women 18 years and older without a prescription at most pharmacies. Women must show proof of age to purchase Plan B. For women 17 years old and younger, Plan B is available with a doctor's prescription.


Also, I find this sentence interesting from the Mayo site: 
Human conception rarely occurs immediately after intercourse.

Rarely doesn't mean never :-\

Fine then, ...if rarely doesn't mean never, ...then let the doctors show with 100% certainty that conception has already taken place before they demand a woman become the forced receptacle for breeding a rapist's baby.  >:(
w

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2007, 11:11:36 AM »

And what specific law or rule did he violate that would allow his medical license to be taken away?   

First, do no harm!
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2007, 02:28:40 PM »
First, do no harm!

Assuming that part of the Hippocratic Oath can result in the loss of this doctor's medical license, how did he violate it?  Where is the harm? . . . other than poor bedside manner, assuming this woman's version is accurate (keeping in mind you don't have the doctor's version of events).   

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2007, 03:47:35 PM »
Fine then, ...if rarely doesn't mean never, ...then let the doctors show with 100% certainty that conception has already taken place before they demand a woman become the forced receptacle for breeding a rapist's baby.  >:(

  Implantation doesn't take place til about day 6.  Here is an interesting article on the first days after fertilization.  I still don't feel that taking EC shortly after unprotected sex is anywhere close to an abortion, but it does raise some interesting points.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2007, 10:46:53 PM »
  Implantation doesn't take place til about day 6.  Here is an interesting article on the first days after fertilization.  I still don't feel that taking EC shortly after unprotected sex is anywhere close to an abortion, but it does raise some interesting points.

If at all. And that's just implantation... provided of course that the egg is fertilized, which in many cases takes places up to 4 days after intercourse. If some of these vigilante pro-lifers had any idea about the amount of fertilized eggs that do not implant themselves into the uterus, they'd shit themselves.
w

~flower~

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3597
  • D/s
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2007, 06:03:41 AM »
Yes, that is just implantation.   If you read that article some people consider life starts the moment the egg is fertilized.   I do think that is the start of a life, but can't be considered a "baby" because the cells have not even differentiated into what parts of the body they will become.  I can't consider that "murder" if someone wants to use that term.  And like you said Jag, a lot of eggs do not implant, or the body aborts them even if they do.  That does happen a lot more than people think it does.

   I don't think EC should be used nonchalantly as a means of birth control, but accidents and mistakes do happen, and women are raped, so to deny women the availability of this option may result in more actual abortions, IMO.

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons
« Reply #43 on: June 25, 2007, 07:20:48 AM »
No, they wouldn't.

How would you react if your daughter was permanently psychologically damaged after a visit to the hospital because the doctor would not threat her because of her being a Christian?
These days, it feels like that's more and more the norm.     ::)

Please give good and rational reasons for your statement about abortions being bad. Arguments from the religious doctrine you believe in does not count (as any reasonably intelligent person should understand).
Have you ever seen the ultrasound of a "fetus" at 8 weeks?  It's but a speck and a heartbeat.  The heartbeat means that there is life.  Did you know at 9 weeks, a "fetus" can feel pain.  Simply put, DF, it's a life.