Should Doctors Refuse Help on Religious Grounds?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:34 am

Some doctors refuse services for religious reasonsBy Laura Parker, USA TODAY

Doctors are becoming more assertive in refusing to treat patients for religious reasons, expanding the list of services they won't provide beyond abortion to include artificial insemination, use of fetal tissues and even prescribing Viagra.

The shift is prompting a new round of debate in courts and state legislatures over the balance between protecting the constitutional right to religious freedom and laws prohibiting discrimination.

COLLISION OF RIGHTS: Calif. doctors accused of using faith to violate gay bias law

More than half the states in the past two years have debated expanding legal protections for health care providers, including pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for the "morning after" pill. Two states have passed them.

"We've wound up with statutes that are incredibly broad," says Alta Charo, a University of Wisconsin law professor who studies bioethics. She says the use of fetal tissue in the development of chicken pox and measles vaccines also has become an issue.

Most disputes arise out of beginning-of-life and end-of-life issues, such as assisted suicide. No doctor is required to perform particular treatments.

The collision between religious freedom and rules against discrimination occurs when physicians perform procedures selectively, offering them to some patients but withholding them from others, says Jill Morrison, legal counsel to the National Women's Law Center.

This year in a case generating wide interest, the California Supreme Court will hear a first-of-its-kind lawsuit: fertility treatment denied to a lesbian.

In Washington state, a gay man recently settled out of court with a doctor who refused to prescribe him Viagra.

"He told me he had prescribed certain drugs for married people, but he wasn't going to do that for me," Jonathan Shuffield says. "It was very painful having the trust broken between my doctor and me."

Patrick Gillen, legal counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based public interest law firm that defends religious freedom, says the political clout of gays and lesbians has led to a situation that "is ripe for conflict." Gillen says no doctors should be required to perform procedures that violate their religious faith, especially "if the patients can get the treatment elsewhere."

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:13 am

10 views and no takers??

No one wants to tackle this one??

PARTY POOPERS!! :p

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:16 am

Gillen says no doctors should be required to perform procedures that violate their religious faith, especially "if the patients can get the treatment elsewhere."

My point of view is stated above. If they can get the same treatment elsewhere, then move on. Don't start a fuss!

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:18 am

RedGlitter;673501 wrote: 10 views and no takers??

No one wants to tackle this one??

PARTY POOPERS!! :p

Well I dunno about this, I can only say if we can get a second opinion for say warts, why can't these people who are denied by one doctor go to another for a second opinion.

It's a tough call as the doctor, you have your code of ethics. When do they cross from professional to personal, and how do we the patient know?

Its not so cut and dry, black and white is it. It's all a judgement call on the Dr.s part, and when does he/she intervene. Much like the common issue of blood transfusions? Dr's are meant to save lives but when religous beliefs say different who has the final say?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:05 pm

I think one of the last California executions scheduled, doctors refused to give the lethal injections, based on moral principles. Should they have been made to go ahead and give it? I don't think so..................

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:36 pm

In my view if a person trains as a doctor and takes the hippocratic oath (which is about 2,500 years old BTW), then they have no business bringing their religion into the practice of medical science, they should be struck off, and can go try becomming theologians instead if relgion is what inspires them. I mean, where does that one end, Christian doctors refusing to treat jews or devout buddist doctors refusing to treat people because they ate meat, it quiclky becomes apparent that such an approach would lead to a medical free-for-all, and destroy the notion of organized medical care, no? Western Doctors are required by the laws of the state to adminisiter the best possible treatments that they can to all. without bias to ensure a patients physical (not religious) well being, they are not qualified to discriminate because of their own particular views on a given subject.

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:39 pm

i dont know red,i just really dont what to say on this one:-3

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:05 pm

In my opinion, Gally said all that needs to said on the subject. Religion has no business in medicine.

Doctors should treat the patients physical problems. End of story.

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:02 am

John 8:7... "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Who among us is clean and pure enough to get by with saying they aren’t a sinner. If we aren’t treating sinners today, I got news for you... we might as well close up shop because there won’t be anyone left to treat.

If a person is sick treat them. End of story.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:05 am

Well, I'm not a sinner, thanks, but I agree with the sentiment. I think both Gal and Chookie said what I think...but I can see the other side too. I just lean more toward the hippocratic oath and keeping religion aside.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:16 am

Its a tough issue. What if a Jehova Witness became a doctor, and refused to give a blood transfusion to a dying man? Doctors with strict moral, religious beliefs should be required to publicly state those beliefs. They should all work at one big medical facility where patients having the same beliefs should go for treatment, or lack of. Everyone at the facility... Patients and staff could feel very good about themselves. I wouldnt want a doctor who had a bad attitude performing an abortion on me. He might just decide to punish me and do a complete hysterectomy. A gay man going in for a prostate procedure could wind up coming out of the OR without a penis. etc etc....

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:22 pm

weeder;673789 wrote: Its a tough issue. What if a Jehova Witness became a doctor, and refused to give a blood transfusion to a dying man? Doctors with strict moral, religious beliefs should be required to publicly state those beliefs. They should all work at one big medical facility where patients having the same beliefs should go for treatment, or lack of. Everyone at the facility... Patients and staff could feel very good about themselves. I wouldnt want a doctor who had a bad attitude performing an abortion on me. He might just decide to punish me and do a complete hysterectomy. A gay man going in for a prostate procedure could wind up coming out of the OR without a penis. etc etc....

That's not a bad idea, Weeder.

I'm only slightly torn. I see both sides but I lean prettily heavily to the one that says "treat all." I just don't know the answer.