OT- Doctors and moral beliefs

Pretty interesting read from MSNBC

Is your doctor playing judge? - Women's Health - MSNBC.com

I guess from my standpoint, I don't have much problem with what the doctor in the example did. Without knowing the circumstances of the hospital, the lady should have been provided with care to her liking, but you can't expect a doctor to do something he/she finds morally reprehensible.

(for the record, I'm anti-abortion in cases not threatening the mother's life. Rape, as in this case? - man that's a crappy situation to call all the way around. But I find it hard to make that exception)

But it does bring up and interesting and critical issue. When does a doctor's personal beliefs get in the way of treating patients? Unfortunately in the article, they can offer no examples beyond reproductive issues. IMO, 99.9999% of these cases are rarely life-threatening or without other options or providers. But the page 4 one regarding the woman with the miscarriage is very interesting.

All in all, the subject is a very grey area.

At times I think we're very 3rd world in our need to control the behavior of women.

I know this involves a very small amount of women needing treatment and services, but it might be a good idea to require doctors to be very upfront about what their religious and cultural opinions won't allow them to treat. Require that they advertise their opinions.

Then, instead of some jerk treating the women like a dog turd, she could simply find a real doc.

Thats complete BS. Thats like a pharmacist refusing to sell a female birth control because its against their beliefs. Last time I checked people didn't go to doctor's or pharmacist's for there beliefs they went there for medical attention and medicine. If they don't want to do their jobs then they should be fired.

(for the record I am all for a female making their own bodily decisions)

Really?

I'd like to have a nice healthy stock of valium and vicodin, just in case I get hurt or depressed. Should I just get those without regard to the doctor's opinons?

I wish they could've come up with an example beyond reproductive issues. Fact is, there are plenty of doctors and providers who will give such services without issue. I'd say, "find one". I see no need to force those who don't agree with it (especially when it's a rather "discretional" issue like birth control).

At the same time, you could say "this is the world we live in, the doctor probably shouldn't have got into that line of practice knowing this is an issue that will come up".

Tough call.

Question, should all doctors be required to perform abortions on demand?

I do not see a problem with him declining to administer or provide her with the pill. However, she should have been referred directly to someone who would. I find the morning after pill morally repugnant, though less so than abortion. But if there is a use for it, this would be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

I wish they could've come up with an example beyond reproductive issues.

Question, should all doctors be required to perform abortions on demand?

---

I think this is pretty much a non-issue unless it involves women's bodies, that's why there are no non-reprodutive issues.

Doctors should absolutely not be required to provide abortions on demand. But make the service available without strings attached or making ladies drive 300 miles.

It's probably time for women's hospitals with female only staffs and no catholics involved. There might even be a market for that.

I agree. The caveat is when you have a private hospital with policies, and it's the only service in the vicinity.

If options are available, there's no need to compromise a doctor's convictions. The slippery slope is when there's limited or no options.

I'm struggling to think of examples of faith conflicting with modern medicine outside the issue of reproduction. Technically speaking, a vasectomy wouldn't be performed in a Catholic hospital like Mercy (or at least I wouldn't think it would). There's the lone example for men I can come up with (oh boy!)

I guess it could quickly become and issue in terms of stem cell treatments for a variety of ailments - should they become available.

That's a hot topic issue regarding beliefs, that is similar in nature to the pro-life/abortion fight, but doesn't involve a woman's right to choose.

I'm Pro-Choice and have no problem with the Doctor refusing to provide her with the EC pill. I think a little compassion and a better explanantion than "no" would have been better bedside manner. But, morally, the doctor has to answer to a high power than his employer.

I can give you an example other than re-production, and has to do with the care of children. I didn't want to give my son the MMR shot at 18 months. I had one doctor who refused to see my son, if I did not and another who agreed to split out the doses of the viruses instead of administrering the immunization all at once.

It is sad how she was treated. I would expect more out of a moral person. However, he needs to have the freedom to refuse a procedure that conflicts with his convictions.

What about a doctor refusing to provide pharmeceutical treatment for post-partum depression. That is one I could see.

I could see that as another issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaddyMac

ITechnically speaking, a vasectomy wouldn't be performed in a Catholic hospital like Mercy (or at least I wouldn't think it would). There's the lone example for men I can come up with (oh boy!)

---

You wouldn't think, but I ahhhh know a friend yeah a friend who had one at religion affiliated hospital in dsm.

Not to confuse the subject, but Plan B is over the counter now, so she could have just drove to walgreens and got it. But that is not the point of the article.

I believe there are taxicab drivers in new York who are permitted to pass by intoxicated people or people carrying booze b/c they are muslim.

These decisions should be company-wide policies so you can decide where to go. For instance, if Walgreens permitted pharmacists to refuse to give the morning after pill and Osco didn't, people could base their decision on where to shop on those facts. It's the same way with taxi cabs companites. If it's such a bad policy that would hurt business, they can put the kabosh to it.

That was very rambled. My apoligies.

as a physician I believe it is okay for a doctor to decline any service due to personal belief but I think it is unethical to not inform the patient of all options available and refer them to someone who will provide the services desired.