Is this doctor playing "God"?

[SLM]

that her belief system is more important than the requirements of the job...

and apparently as of yet...she is not giving patients birth control regardless of their request

to me it is an interesting conundrum that could set a medical precedent if allowed to continue

my doctor is Hindu...yet she never tells me not to eat meat, although she does not eat meat, she believes in marriage before sex, yet she has never instructed me that I should take vows before continuing in my relationship

it's an interesting stance to take publically

But prescribing a medication or performing a medical service, like say circumcision for example, involves actively participating in something that may go against a personal belief.

Simply not saying something judgmental to someone who practices a different lifestyle choice than you is just good manners.

She's not telling anyone not to go and get birth control, just that she won't prescribe them. That's not 'taking a stand' that's just limiting her involvement. Again, someone that I find to be an odd choice for a medical practitioner in a walk in clinic but certainly not anything to get outraged over. There are many walk in clinics, including those (in most cities) solely dedicated to women's health and reproduction.

 

[Sal]

Yep, part of the hypcratic oath is to "do no harm", now this would be very borderline, but some might argue that to cause a person anxiety is to do harm. I know it's "grasping at straws", but I feel she is putting her personal beliefs above the patient. We could extend it a step further and say she has a right to deny blood transfusions because she's a J.W. Maybe I'm being stupid! -

no I don't think you are being stupid, I don't know what the ramifications could be if one choose to place one's personal belief system over her duty as a physician...

if allowed, will we have to interview physicians as to their personal beliefs

If I ask her to tie my tubes does she have a right to refuse?
If I ask her not to put me on life support does she have a right to decide she thinks I should be on life support?

Picking and choosing what they should do according to their belief system makes them untrustworthy as a doctor.

But prescribing a medication or performing a medical service, like say circumcision for example, involves actively participating in something that may go against a personal belief.

Simply not saying something judgmental to someone who practices a different lifestyle choice than you is just good manners.

She's not telling anyone not to go and get birth control, just that she won't prescribe them. That's not 'taking a stand' that's just limiting her involvement. Again, someone that I find to be an odd choice for a medical practitioner in a walk in clinic but certainly not anything to get outraged over. There are many walk in clinics, including those (in most cities) solely dedicated to women's health and reproduction.

Hm, an interesting stance. I do not agree and would not go to such a physician but it seems most in the thread would be fine with it. Would you feel safe going to her then?

I believe she has violated her oath and public trust. I would hope she will be disciplined.

 

[JLM]

no I don't think you are being stupid, I don't know what the ramifications could be if one choose to place one's personal belief system over her duty as a physician...

if allowed, will we have to interview physicians as to their personal beliefs

If I ask her to tie my tubes does she have a right to refuse?
If I ask her not to put me on life support does she have a right to decide she thinks I should be on life support?

Picking and choosing what they should do according to their belief system makes them untrustworthy as a doctor.

Hm, an interesting stance. I do not agree and would not go to such a physician but it seems most in the thread would be fine with it. Would you feel safe going to her then?

I believe she has violated her oath and public trust. I would hope she will be disciplined.

Well doctors do have to be allowed to exercise personal discretion- sometimes it's crucial, sometimes it's just more desirable. I've had one or two doctors who don't recommend P.S.A. tests for screening for prostate cancer and for very good reason and while I was their patient I followed their advice, but at the same time I know if I demanded it they would prescribe because the test isn't physically harmful, although it can cause unnecessary mental stress.

 

[SLM]

no I don't think you are being stupid, I don't know what the ramifications could be if one choose to place one's personal belief system over her duty as a physician...

if allowed, will we have to interview physicians as to their personal beliefs

If I ask her to tie my tubes does she have a right to refuse?
If I ask her not to put me on life support does she have a right to decide she thinks I should be on life support?

Picking and choosing what they should do according to their belief system makes them untrustworthy as a doctor.

The onus I believe would be on the physician to state very clearly and plainly what will and will not participate in, then choosing them as a physician becomes the choice of the patient. Full disclosure and all that.

As to the life support question, the onus would be on the hospital to staff accordingly so that neither patient nor doctor is forced into a course of action that violates their belief system.

Hm, an interesting stance. I do not agree and would not go to such a physician but it seems most in the thread would be fine with it. Would you feel safe going to her then?

Not if I was looking for birth control but if I had a sore throat and went to the walk in clinic, why not?

I believe she has violated her oath and public trust. I would hope she will be disciplined.

Are you aware that there are provisions in most provinces medical practice regulatory guidelines for such issues? This is not a disciplinary situation.

 

[Sal]

The onus I believe would be on the physician to state very clearly and plainly what will and will not participate in, then choosing them as a physician becomes the choice of the patient. Full disclosure and all that.

wow, I could not support that...I have zero desire to have my doctor attempting to fully disclose how their personal beliefs will affect my health.

As to the life support question, the onus would be on the hospital to staff accordingly so that neither patient nor doctor is forced into a course of action that violates their belief system.

no...I do not want the onus on hospital staff to correct my physican's way ward thinking.

Not if I was looking for birth control but if I had a sore throat and went to the walk in clinic, why not?

why not...because what else has not been disclosed...once again, no way I am interviewing a doctor in order to understand their belief system...this is not a factory line... it is supposed to be a profession.

Are you aware that there are provisions in most provinces medical practice regulatory guidelines for such issues? This is not a disciplinary situation.

interesting... hopefully her choice to place her personal belief system before the needs of her patients is limited to non threatening situations. I would not wish anyone to be on the receiving end of one of her decisions that hasn't been made clear on a little poster.

 

[gerryh]

Yup, yup, yup, if you live by your convictions and beliefs, then you are incompetent and untrustworthy. I guess those of Faith should just relegate themselves to ditch digger or labourer. Then again, wanting Sunday off may be problematic.

no...I do not want the onus on hospital staff to correct my physican's way ward thinking.

She didnt say "hospital staff"

 

[SLM]

wow, I could not support that...I have zero desire to have my doctor attempting to fully disclose how their personal beliefs will affect my health.

You make it sound so sordid, lol. I simply want it stated if there is anything commonplace that the doctor will not provide, for instance birth control. If I call to inquire if a doctor is taking new patients, I'd like to be informed of policies like this one so then I have to opportunity to say "thanks, but no thanks" if I so choose. I have no need or desire to know the details of their personal beliefs. I don't want or need to know why, just simply that they will or won't.

Further, again as an example, there are many doctor's who will not perform circumcisions on babies. They should not be forced to do so, nor should they be banned or disciplined for refusing, but what they must do is provide referral for a physician who will. And referral has to be made sans judgment. Patient acquires the service they require, physician is not forced to participate in an act that conflicts with their personal beliefs.

no...I do not want the onus on hospital staff to correct my physican's way ward thinking.

Wayward thinking? I said nothing about wayward thinking, I said it was up to the hospital to staff accordingly. Anyway it's not wayward thinking, it simply doesn't agree with your own. What if it goes the other way and the patient and family does not wish to be removed from life support? My point being that there are often situations where patient and doctor will conflict, that doesn't mean the doctor should be forced into action or omission nor that they should be barred from practice or sanctioned.

Do you think a doctor should be forced to unplug life support units then? Or that the College should refuse to grant licenses to doctors who are not comfortable performing that function? Why would either be necessary when a referral is a viable option that is already utilized.

why not...because what else has not been disclosed...once again, no way I am interviewing a doctor in order to understand their belief system...this is not a factory line... it is supposed to be a profession.

Then that is your choice and it was one that was able to be made because full disclosure was made.

interesting... hopefully her choice to place her personal belief system before the needs of her patients is limited to non threatening situations. I would not wish anyone to be on the receiving end of one of her decisions that hasn't been made clear on a little poster.

What about a situation where the patient is requesting a service that is also relatively acceptable medically speaking (in that it is being provided, funded, in this nation) like gastric band surgery? It remains rather controversial and personally I'd have no problem with a physican telling his or her patient that 1) they recommend against it and that 2) they will provide a referral to another physician who can fulfill those needs should the patient want to move forward. Is something like that really any different?

 

[Sal]

Yup, yup, yup, if you live by your convictions and beliefs, then you are incompetent and untrustworthy. I guess those of Faith should just relegate themselves to ditch digger or labourer. Then again, wanting Sunday off may be problematic.



She didnt say "hospital staff"

oh, I am super sorry eh? aaaaaaaaaah, luckily for her she has you to help her eh ger...a quick find

 

[gerryh]

As an aside,


I just love how those that scream the loudest about people of "Faith" pushing their "morals" on others turn, out to be one of the worst in doing exactly the same thing.

This article and Doctor is a prime example. Seems the Naniamo city council is not an aberration.

 

[Sal]

You make it sound so sordid, lol. I simply want it stated if there is anything commonplace that the doctor will not provide, for instance birth control. If I call to inquire if a doctor is taking new patients, I'd like to be informed of policies like this one so then I have to opportunity to say "thanks, but no thanks" if I so choose. I have no need or desire to know the details of their personal beliefs. I don't want or need to know why, just simply that they will or won't.

lol...I believe her choice to be inappropriate for a physician but not sordid...honestly. It is a policy only due to her belief system and I do not view birth control as common place nor a small thing. If I am using birth control it affects my whole life as well as my health. She can not be a physician long term for medical reasons if one takes the pill. It is a medical issue with potential hazard.

Further, again as an example, there are many doctor's who will not perform circumcisions on babies. They should not be forced to do so, nor should they be banned or disciplined for refusing, but what they must do is provide referral for a physician who will. And referral has to be made sans judgment. Patient acquires the service they require, physician is not forced to participate in an act that conflicts with their personal beliefs.

The refusal to perform circumcisions is health based and not any different than a surgeon that does not perform cosmetic surgery. Also a circumcision is performed only once or at least one would hope so...;-) thus not an ongoing medical situation.

Wayward thinking? I said nothing about wayward thinking,

no, no...to me her thinking is wayward

I said it was up to the hospital to staff accordingly.

a large burden to place on staffing if you have to begin to staff according to the physicians personal beliefs and what they will and will not do in a crisis situation

Do you think a doctor should be forced to unplug life support units then?

If that is my directive, you are damned right they had better.

Or that the College should refuse to grant licenses to doctors who are not comfortable performing that function? Why would either be necessary when a referral is a viable option that is already utilized.

I trust my physician with my life. She is ethical and her personal and private belief system should not interfer with her ability to do her job. When I am dying and wish the life support removed there will be no need to scramble around to find a physician comfortable with doing so.

What about a situation where the patient is requesting a service that is also relatively acceptable medically speaking (in that it is being provided, funded, in this nation) like gastric band surgery? It remains rather controversial and personally I'd have no problem with a physican telling his or her patient that 1) they recommend against it and that 2) they will provide a referral to another physician who can fulfill those needs should the patient want to move forward. Is something like that really any different?

Are you saying said physician has a belief system with the need to prohibit gastric bipass surgery or lap band interference?

 

[Twila]

tHE SUN RISES IN THE EAST FOR A REASON. YOU WESTERN DOGS GET USED SUN EVERYDAY.

By the time it gets to alberta it is very much depletedbut will STILL support support albertans, THE LAST VESTIGES OF ITS POWER ARE SPENT ON BC, EVEN THEY WRING SOME FORM OF LIFE FROM IT'S MUCH DIMMNED RADIANCE, NEXT IS ALGE

Have you any idea of how upset the snobs in Vancouver would be if they knew they were getting used sun? It could start a posh riot to be sure.

 

[Corduroy]

Serving pork is part of the job the chef was hired to do. If he can't do it because of his religion he should have never taken the job, and because he won't he should be fired.

Oh wait... wrong thread.

 

[Twila]

In the article it does not state why this Dr won't prescribe birth control pills.

Or did I miss it?

Birthcontrol pills can be quite dangerous for some people.

 

[SLM]

lol...I believe her choice to be inappropriate for a physician but not sordid...honestly. It is a policy only due to her belief system and I do not view birth control as common place nor a small thing. If I am using birth control it affects my whole life as well as my health. She can not be a physician long term for medical reasons if one takes the pill. It is a medical issue with potential hazard.

I believe her choice to be one that would limit her prospective patient list by a great degree and make her practice limited. That's my personal opinion of the decision she's made. But, in the end, that's her choice and the choice of those who would be her patients given that she's informed them.

The refusal to perform circumcisions is health based and not any different than a surgeon that does not perform cosmetic surgery. Also a circumcision is performed only once or at least one would hope so...;-) thus not an ongoing medical situation.

It doesn't matter if it's ongoing or one time, it still speaks to actively performing a medical service which individual physicians may not be comfortable with. Opinions can and do differ even amongst medical professionals on a variety of what would be considered standard medical procedures and practices.

no, no...to me her thinking is wayward

a large burden to place on staffing if you have to begin to staff according to the physicians personal beliefs and what they will and will not do in a crisis situation

Defining the parameters of the job is not staffing according to the physicians personal beliefs, it's actually the opposite. Hence the onus is on the hospital to staff accordingly.

If that is my directive, you are damned right they had better.

Or provide you with someone who will. What is the difference?

I trust my physician with my life. She is ethical and her personal and private belief system should not interfer with her ability to do her job. When I am dying and wish the life support removed there will be no need to scramble around to find a physician comfortable with doing so.

Your family doctor may have a say if she has hospital privileges, many today don't. I've heard of several here in London. Otherwise, the attending physician is the one who makes the call and they are employed by the hospital. It is the hospital that provides the care needed/required/requested and does so by staffing with medical professionals capable and competent to provide such services. And there is no scramble, life support is not administered at home, it's done in the hospital and there is never just one doctor providing services to a patient, there are several.

Are you saying said physician has a belief system with the need to prohibit gastric bipass surgery or lap band interference?

Sigh, no. What I'm pointing out is there are a great many instances where a physician will make a referral for a service that he or she is not willing to provide. It's common practice. Does the reason why they are not willing to provide it matter? I thought you didn't want to know their personal beliefs.

 

[gerryh]

Sigh, no. What I'm pointing out is there are a great many instances where a physician will make a referral for a service that he or she is not willing to provide. It's common practice. Does the reason why they are not willing to provide it matter? I thought you didn't want to know their personal beliefs.

Here's the way it works.


" It only matters when it is because of "Faith". Then she would want to know their personal beliefs so that she can denigrate them and force them to fall in line with her personal beliefs.

 

[Corduroy]

In the article it does not state why this Dr won't prescribe birth control pills.

Or did I miss it?

Birthcontrol pills can be quite dangerous for some people.

Yeah, and they might be medically necessary for reasons that have nothing to do with sex or pregnancy.

 

[Twila]

Yeah, and they might be medically necessary for reasons that have nothing to do with sex or pregnancy.

Yep, to be sure. But they can still be dangerous to some people. Regardless of the reason for taking them.

 

[gerryh]

Yeah, and they might be medically necessary for reasons that have nothing to do with sex or pregnancy.

and those that need them can go to a different doctor, a different walk in or that walk in on a different day.

 

[Sal]

I believe her choice to be one that would limit her prospective patient list by a great degree and make her practice limited. That's my personal opinion of the decision she's made. But, in the end, that's her choice and the choice of those who would be her patients given that she's informed them.

It doesn't matter if it's ongoing or one time, it still speaks to actively performing a medical service which individual physicians may not be comfortable with. Opinions can and do differ even amongst medical professionals on a variety of what would be considered standard medical procedures and practices.

Defining the parameters of the job is not staffing according to the physicians personal beliefs, it's actually the opposite. Hence the onus is on the hospital to staff accordingly.

Or provide you with someone who will. What is the difference?

Your family doctor may have a say if she has hospital privileges, many today don't. I've heard of several here in London. Otherwise, the attending physician is the one who makes the call and they are employed by the hospital. It is the hospital that provides the care needed/required/requested and does so by staffing with medical professionals capable and competent to provide such services. And there is no scramble, life support is not administered at home, it's done in the hospital and there is never just one doctor providing services to a patient, there are several.

Sigh, no. What I'm pointing out is there are a great many instances where a physician will make a referral for a service that he or she is not willing to provide. It's common practice. Does the reason why they are not willing to provide it matter? I thought you didn't want to know their personal beliefs.

I believe it does. Yes.

for the reasons stated above...no reason to state them all over again...and I believe we are wandering off topic

apparently in the States it is perfectly legal...interesting

I just found a blog from Anderson Cooper who sums up my thoughts on it.

When doctors play judge
When I go to a doctor, I expect him or her to treat me, whether I have a sore throat, a stomach-ache or something more serious. So when I found out that doctors around the country are refusing to treat patients because the patients' needs conflict with their religious beliefs, I just had to look into it further.

Turns out, it's all legal. Doctors can turn down patients and they are doing exactly that. In Pennsylvania, a woman who had been raped was denied the morning-after pill, which would prevent her from getting pregnant. In the Midwest, a woman was denied the same treatment after she had unprotected sex with a boy she was dating. And in Texas, we met a woman who told us her doctor refused to give her birth control pills because he was a Catholic and it threw his moral compass off course. "He told me he didn't believe in prescribing birth control, he thought it was morally wrong that I shouldn't be having sex and he launched into a lecture about ethically how I need to rethink things," said the woman, who asked not to be identified.

We spoke with one Catholic doctor in Manassas, Virginia, who says he's rejected at least a dozen patients who asked for birth control pills. Dr. Scott Ross told us, "I think we as physicians have the right to uphold our own moral grounds and we don't have to do everything that's asked of us."

The American Medical Association agrees. "Any physician has the opportunity that if because of personal beliefs religious or moral beliefs that they can refuse to provide services, but we also believe that that physician has an obligation to provide an avenue where the patient can get the care that they're seeking," said Dr. Edward Langston at the A.M.A. We found that eight states have laws giving doctors the legal right to reject treatment.

Tell us what you think. Should doctors be able to deny patients care because it conflicts with their own religious beliefs? Is there room for both religion and medicine in the exam room? How do you think this might affect the quality of care patients receive?

CNN.com - Anderson Cooper 360° Blog

 

[Corduroy]

Yep, to be sure. But they can still be dangerous to some people. Regardless of the reason for taking them.

I guess we should employ highly trained professionals to determine this. Because it's very important, I propose these professionals make this determination based on the needs of their patients through scientific observation.