Drs. refusing treatment for religious reasons

[~flower~]

  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)

[Butterbean]

 

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

)

Yes, I think so.

 

   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)

I don't agree w/the Catholic Church concept that birth control is a sin or whatever they think it is, but I don't think a Catholic doctor should be forced to prescribe it.  I'm not sure they could write a law specific enough to cover things for which they could or could not refuse.  Even if it was something like the woman's life is at stake unless whatever, each situation would have it's own details and judgement calls would differ.


My old gyno's office used to be in a Catholic Hospital.  I had a fibroid but she wrongly diagnosed it and prescribed a Depo-Provera shot in hopes it would stop the bleeding.  I took the script downstairs to the pharmacy and they asked if it was for birth control.  I was just thinking in general terms about it what that shot is mainly used for and said Yes.  They then said they couldn't fill the script there.  No biggie, I went to a diff. pharmacy.


That article looks a little biased against "religious beliefs" in my opinion.

For instance, look at the writing here:

"Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)"

Why didn't she see another doctor?  Is she saying he said it was against Dr. Gish's religion for her to see another doctor? 




And this (attention to the bold) is not exclusive to female health care:

"In many cases, women don't even know a doctor is withholding treatment. Boyer and Harnish, for example, wouldn't have realized they'd been denied care if they'd been among the estimated one in three women who don't know about EC. In the New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. "When you see a doctor, you presume you're getting all the information you need to make a decision," notes Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and ...."



But I've read "SELF Magazine" several years ago and my interpreted skewing on their part does not surprise me.

[Nordic Superman]

Fuck you STella!

Government, educational establishments and medical institutes and the such should always be secular: religious beliefs left at the door (for both the doctors, nurses etc AND patients).

This should be an amendment to every democratic countries constitution, those that aren't democratic, nuke them to hell and back. No "ifs" or "buts".

[Butterbean]

Fuck you STella!

Government, educational establishments and medical institutes and the such should always be secular: religious beliefs left at the door (for both the doctors, nurses etc AND patients).

This should be an amendment to every democratic countries constitution, those that aren't democratic, nuke them to hell and back. No "ifs" or "buts".

I see you feel strongly about this.  Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

[Nordic Superman]

I see you feel strongly about this.  Thanks for your contribution to this thread.

Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. They will enter the gas chamber when I become ruler of the known Universe.

Wisen up women.

[Colossus_500]

Yes, I think so.


I don't agree w/the Catholic Church concept that birth control is a sin or whatever they think it is, but I don't think a Catholic doctor should be forced to prescribe it.  I'm not sure they could write a law specific enough to cover things for which they could or could not refuse.  Even if it was something like the woman's life is at stake unless whatever, each situation would have it's own details and judgement calls would differ.


My old gyno's office used to be in a Catholic Hospital.  I had a fibroid but she wrongly diagnosed it and prescribed a Depo-Provera shot in hopes it would stop the bleeding.  I took the script downstairs to the pharmacy and they asked if it was for birth control.  I was just thinking in general terms about it what that shot is mainly used for and said Yes.  They then said they couldn't fill the script there.  No biggie, I went to a diff. pharmacy.


That article looks a little biased against "religious beliefs" in my opinion.

For instance, look at the writing here:

"Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)"

Why didn't she see another doctor?  Is she saying he said it was against Dr. Gish's religion for her to see another doctor? 




And this (attention to the bold) is not exclusive to female health care:

"In many cases, women don't even know a doctor is withholding treatment. Boyer and Harnish, for example, wouldn't have realized they'd been denied care if they'd been among the estimated one in three women who don't know about EC. In the New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. "When you see a doctor, you presume you're getting all the information you need to make a decision," notes Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and ...."

But I've read "SELF Magazine" several years ago and my interpreted skewing on their part does not surprise me.

I agree with Stella.  She could have easily escalated the fact that she wanted another doctor.  It's her right to do so.  Understanding her already-grief stricken state of mind, I still think she could have just gone to the nearest pharmacy. 

But Boyer remained haunted by the ER doctor's refusal — so profoundly, she hasn't been to see a gynecologist in the two and a half years since. "I haven't gotten the nerve up to go, for fear of being judged again," she says.  - How is it that she was being judged by the doc when he said it was against his religion?   

Fuck you STella!

Government, educational establishments and medical institutes and the such should always be secular: religious beliefs left at the door (for both the doctors, nurses etc AND patients).

This should be an amendment to every democratic countries constitution, those that aren't democratic, nuke them to hell and back. No "ifs" or "buts".

You could have just as easily made your point without the expletive.   

[Nordic Superman]

You could have just as easily made your point without the expletive.   

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!

[~flower~]

Why didn't she see another doctor?  Is she saying he said it was against Dr. Gish's religion for her to see another doctor? 

 I think he wouldn't get another on duty doctor for her. She said she would gladly see another doctor, and he shook his head no.   Now if that was me I would of DEMANDED to see another doctor, but I could understand she was traumatized then on top of it the doctor judged her and then told her she couldn't have another doctor.  That, IMO, was wrong of him.  He could of had another doctor take over her case. 

And this (attention to the bold) is not exclusive to female health care:

"In many cases, women don't even know a doctor is withholding treatment. Boyer and Harnish, for example, wouldn't have realized they'd been denied care if they'd been among the estimated one in three women who don't know about EC. In the New England Journal of Medicine survey, 8 percent of physicians said they felt no obligation to present all options to their patients. "When you see a doctor, you presume you're getting all the information you need to make a decision," notes Jill Morrison, senior counsel for health and ...."



But I've read "SELF Magazine" several years ago and my interpreted skewing on their part does not surprise me.

  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.

[~flower~]

I agree with Stella.  She could have easily escalated the fact that she wanted another doctor.  It's her right to do so.  Understanding her already-grief stricken state of mind, I still think she could have just gone to the nearest pharmacy. 

But Boyer remained haunted by the ER doctor's refusal — so profoundly, she hasn't been to see a gynecologist in the two and a half years since. "I haven't gotten the nerve up to go, for fear of being judged again," she says.  - How is it that she was being judged by the doc when he said it was against his religion?   

  He judged her.  She was raped and brutalized, then had a doctor, someone she thought she could trust, judge and dismiss her.   So not only did she have something horrible happen to her, when she went to get help she was made to feel she was wrong.  The fact that he wouldn't get her another doctor when she asked him to, says volumes about his compassion. And he was a man which probably made it even harder for her to stand up to him because a man had just assaulted her. 

[CQ]

That doctor is a self righteous inconsiderate moron.

[Colossus_500]

  He judged her.  She was raped and brutalized, then had a doctor, someone she thought she could trust, judge and dismiss her.   So not only did she have something horrible happen to her, when she went to get help she was made to feel she was wrong.  The fact that he wouldn't get her another doctor when she asked him to, says volumes about his compassion. And he was a man which probably made it even harder for her to stand up to him because a man had just assaulted her. 

If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. - where in this article did he say she couldn't demand to see another doctor?  Why would he say "It's against my religion" to get another doctor?     Also, I question the author of this article's wording here.  Is Erdely (author) injecting her own opinion at this point and then placing the doctor's comment in a place of the article that paints a picture that might not actually be true.  We see this all the time on television in the news.  The media is famous for enclosing their opinion with a soundbite. 

[~flower~]

Assuming that that is what happened and what was said, him saying it was against his religion to knowingly send her to someone else to do something he thinks is wrong.  So he wouldn't/couldn't refer her to someone else for that reason.  Like that would be on his conscious or something.

  Note I said assuming that that is what happened.  Yes, she still could of made a scene or something, but remember she was just raped and brutalized.  Then this doctor judged her and wouldn't help her.  She was probably pretty beaten down emotionally at this time and had no fight in her.

 

[The Master]

Hopefully, they'll fire that asshole. The hospital should be sued. In Norway, he'd lose his job instantly if something like this occured, and he'd be frozen out from the medical social circles in an instant.

[~flower~]

At the very least he should not be allowed to treat rape patients.  If he won't give them all their options, then he should just not treat any. 

[The Master]

At the very least he should not be allowed to treat rape patients.  If he won't give them all their options, then he should just not treat any. 

He should not threat any patient which has been through a recent mental trauma.

That religious people can exert energy trying to justify his acts is just repulsive. In most west european countries, he'd be toast.

If this dude had been a muslim, most of America would have been disgusted.  

[Colossus_500]

At the very least he should not be allowed to treat rape patients.  If he won't give them all their options, then he should just not treat any. 

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.  Still, a nurse practictioner could have prescribed the med she wanted.  The doc has a right to not prescribe the medicine just like pharmacist do with the morning-after pill. 

side note - "morning-after" just sounds immoral to me.   

[Colossus_500]

He should not threat any patient which has been through a recent mental trauma.

That religious people can exert energy trying to justify his acts is just repulsive. In most west european countries, he'd be toast.

If this dude had been a muslim, most of America would have been disgusted.  

Actually, if the doc were a muslim, the media would have pulled out the red carpet for him and turned her name into mud just to appease him for fear that he might blow up some stuff. 

No, repulsive is 49 million abortions in this country since 1974.

[The Master]

Actually, if the doc were a muslim, the media would have pulled out the red carpet for him and turned her name into mud just to appease him for fear that he might blow up some stuff. 

No, repulsive is 49 million abortions in this country since 1974.

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?

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).

[24KT]

Haven't read the article, ...but my take is that that was inexcuseable.

His license should be taken away.

That's like saying the vegetarian check out girl has the right to refuse ringing up your meat purchases at the supermarket, or that the Catholic waitress has the right to refuse you the steak on Friday. Live your own life by your own rules, don't try to make others live by your rules. Take his license away. F'ing moron!

[The Master]

Haven't read the article, ...but my take is that that was inexcuseable.

His license should be taken away.

That's like saying the vegetarian check out girl has the right to refuse ringing up your meat purchases at the supermarket, or that the Catholic waitress has the right to refuse you the steak on Friday. Live your own life by your own rules, don't try to make others live by your rules. Take his license away. F'ing moron!

I don't think the lunatics on this board will understand your argument. They believe that their own rules should apply to everybody, yet, freaks out when the same is done in reverse to them.

[24KT]

Actually, if the doc were a muslim, the media would have pulled out the red carpet for him and turned her name into mud just to appease him for fear that he might blow up some stuff. 

No, repulsive is 49 million abortions in this country since 1974.

This has nothing to do with abortion. Get your head from up out of your anatomy.  

EC is about preventing an unwanted, unplanned, and potentially forced pregnancy!

Maybe you'd be okay with a 13 year old fucking the entire football team,
...afterall, abstinence is another way to prevent pregnancy.

[24KT]

I don't think the lunatics on this board will understand your argument. They believe that their own rules should apply to everybody, yet, freaks out when the same is done in reverse to them.

How can people be so damned stupid? Absolutely fvcking obtuse!!!!
It's a damned good thing that wasn't me, ...'cause I would've probably unleashed some serious whoop ass on him.

Thank Goodness, I have a doctor who treats me according to MY beliefs. And he always lays out ALL options.

[The Master]

How can people be so damned stupid? Absolutely fvcking obtuse!!!!
It's a damned good thing that wasn't me, ...'cause I would've probably unleashed some serious whoop ass on him.

Thank Goodness, I have a doctor who treats me according to MY beliefs. And he always lays out ALL options.

Because these overly religious fanatics lack the intelligence to analyze situations with common sense. They are truly brainwashed if they can not see that what this doctor did was wrong. To defend a doctor (PAID to threat patients with respect and dignity) acting like a pompous asshole to a traumatized rape victim is so ignorant that I really can't understand how it is possible to defend it. Then she becomes traumatized for a long time by the situation, and they try to blame HER for it. I don't think these idiots have ever seen a traumatized person before.. It's selfish and delusional.

[CQ]

He should not threat any patient which has been through a recent mental trauma.

That religious people can exert energy trying to justify his acts is just repulsive. In most west european countries, he'd be toast.

If this dude had been a muslim, most of America would have been disgusted.  

Exactly on the muslim. Americans would be so fired up then, calling for him to be fired...it would be all over the news etc.

Because these overly religious fanatics lack the intelligence to analyze situations with common sense. They are truly brainwashed if they can not see that what this doctor did was wrong. To defend a doctor (PAID to threat patients with respect and dignity) acting like a pompous asshole to a traumatized rape victim is so ignorant that I really can't understand how it is possible to defend it. Then she becomes traumatized for a long time by the situation, and they try to blame HER for it. I don't think these idiots have ever seen a traumatized person before.. It's selfish and delusional.

Agree yet again...

[Butterbean]

 I think he wouldn't get another on duty doctor for her. She said she would gladly see another doctor, and he shook his head no.   

OK I totally did not infer that he refused to get another doc for her.  If that is the case, he should have been reprimanded or fired.