Should doctors and other health care providers be allowed to refuse treatment based on their personal beliefs?

Yes and no. I think a doctor can say 'I am not willing to give you emergency contraception because of my religious beliefs so I'm going to have to refer you to another doctor.' All options should be presented. I don't think a patient should be penalized by the insurance company if they have to go to another doctor and it should be arranged that the person will be able to get to the replacement doctor in time. I'm talking about going to a physician with an appointment. In the instance of an emergency the facility must have some one who can perform ALL procedures necessary. If you won't give some one an abortion who has a life threatening pregnancy then you shouldn't be in emergency medicine. If they are going to instate limitations then they need to limit themselves as well.

I live near a religious hospital and worry about what might go on there but for more reasons than this. I'm worried about all hospitals actually.
I don't think a pharmacist should be able to refuse to fill a prescription on these grounds though. Their job is to fill prescriptions, as long as there is no suspicion of abuse the pharmacist has no reason to refuse.

I chose all four of my 'No' choices.

Yes, but they should have to offer an alternate doctor who will provide this treatment.

if a doctor can not help someone because of a personal belief or any reason they should be required to refer that patient to another facility or care of another physician like they would for a condition that they cannot treat or are not the specialist for. "Do No Harm"

I think doctor's should be allowed to follow their own religious beliefs. If it's severe, then maybe they should only treat patients with the same religious beliefs. If it's not, then treat patients from all walks of life, but be willing to refer the patient to another doctor if they're unable to provide the care the patient needs/wants. A doctor should never push his religious beliefs on a patient....simply stating "I'm not willing/comfortable doing that" would suffice. Morals, values, religion.....we should be allowed to follow our beliefs, regardless of our occupation.

Pfft! No!

Doctors should take care of a person and do any procedure necessary no matter what objections they may have about the patient... If they do not want to, then they should get out of medicine...

I heard on the news in Pennsylvania about a year ago that a woman was raped and when she went to hospital the doctor refused to prescribe a common medication that would terminate pregnancy because he was a Mennonite. I was so pissed. He should have his license revoked.

Doctors should be allowed to refuse any treatment provided they aren't violating their hospital's policy or any contracts they've signed. They should also be required to tell their patients what they will and will not do ahead of time.

I don't see how refusing to provide abortions is discriminatory. This falls more under the category of false advertisement.

Why is a doctor who is against emergency contraception doing rape exams? He needs to be doing something else.

The first four options. I don't believe in doctors discriminating because of religious or any other reasons. I have a sister and female friends.

Depending.

Regarding the case in question about the rape. I feel differently than most about this issue. I feel a woman that is raped should be given a morning after pill, or an abortion if she chooses. A pregnancy because of rape is disgraceful, the woman should not endure the pain of carrying and having the child.

I am wondering the same thing. They should at least advertise what they aren't willing to do. A reasonable person should be able to assume that someone doing rape exams would give emergency contraception.

I think we should stay out of it. I think that doctors who do this will lose business and the market economy will take care of them on is own.

This law sucks. But I know a good way to get rid of it. Just have gay doctors refuse to treat straight patients for "personal beleif" reasons, and watch it get repealed faster than you can spell repeal.

> Doctors should take care of a person and do any
> procedure necessary no matter what objections
> they may have about the patient... If they do
> not want to, then they should get out of medicine...
>

*applause*

No this should not be allowed at all and could lead to lawsuits being filed

I don't know. Maybe doctors with such religious convictions shouldn't be allowed to treat rape victims, or any women who might want contraceptives. This seems particularly inappropriate to me in a hospital. In a private practice maybe it would be a little different.

Religion just seems to take over our lives and religion just seems to rule the whole planet earth it seems to me

You would encounter this in small hospitals where maybe only one ER doctor is on duty. They probably don't have the means for special teams dealing with rapes.

But when you are rushed to the hospital in an ambulance and have no choice who sees you? You may not even be conscious.

What pennyann said

I applauded him as well, Brian. When I was writing the survey I was thinking that exact thing...
Holy crap... did we just agree on something?

What galls me is that none of these mostly male doctors have any problem with prescribing Viagra, but they won't prescribe birth control pills. That is way wrong and discriminatory.

That pretty much disgusts me.

If your religious beliefs are so pervasive that they prevent you from carrying out routine tasks that are part of your job description, then you chose the wrong career.

This is no different than a militant vegetarian working in a butchers and refusing to serve or handle meat.

Yes, I suppose things get a bit tricky in that situation. Though, I believe your family has rights to pick a different doctor, in a case like that. Clearly, there would be some delay and that delay could make a big difference.

I think too, that we could reverse this situation and some people would be upset by it. In other words, a woman/family who believe abortion is murder gets treated by a doctor who insists that she take a morning-after pill. So, I don't know if there's a way for us to solve this problem, since the root of it is that people have different beliefs.

> If your religious beliefs are so pervasive that
> they prevent you from carrying out routine tasks
> that are part of your job description, then you
> chose the wrong career.
>
> This is no different than a militant vegetarian
> working in a butchers and refusing to serve or
> handle meat.

Very nicely put.

No, absolutely not. This shouldn't be negotiable. You can (and should) be struck off in the UK for acting in this way. I say this as a future doctor with personal beliefs of my own - they have to be left at the door, and what is best for the patient on the basis of the available evidence should be the only consideration.

I am aware of a couple of female Muslim doctors in the UK who have attempted to refuse to touch male patients. They were told that they either had to do it, or lose their jobs. Requesting a chaperone is reasonable (since male doctors generally have to be chaperoned when performing an exam on a female patient anyway), refusing to treat someone is not.

They should help a patient in any way possible

I don't see any one forcing a woman to take the morning after pill because it is usually used in the case of a rape. Now, if she had an ectopic pregnancy that will kill her and has no way of being viable I wonder if you could force an abortion?

I agree that is seems unlikely/crazy for someone to be forced to take the morning after pill. But, that's probably just my own reality tunnel. I'm trying to see this from the other side's point of view. And, though I don't really agree with the other side. I do think they have a right to see it differently.

I think this scenario is a concern for the pro-lifers. It may not be force per-se, but a kind of coercion. A girl has been raped, maybe she's still in shock over it, or just really confused and freaked-out. She goes to the hospital, alone. Her family isn't around yet, lets say. The doctor is of the opinion that any child conceived of rape should be aborted. So, the doctor tells her to take the morning after pill. Some time has gone by, so the window to take the pill and have it work is fading fast. Under a little pressure, the raped girl does what the doctor says. Then her family shows up and because of their pro-life beliefs, they feel the doctor has just force their daughter to murder her child.

Yes, this should be allowed, but there should be a prominent warning posted:

This medical practitioner will not provide the following services:

People may wish to select their medical practitioner based upon a similarity in ethical stances. I think I would.

I guess that would have the slightest bit chance of happening. Very very slight. I don't know enough about the current law regarding minors who are victims of rape or incest. I think that any woman of child bearing age should have the option presented, preferably with some one around who specializes in rape or even better, children who have been raped. I hope the parents would be available. I still think it should be up to the person who is pregnant at least for 13 and up. I don't think any girl under 13 should go through a pregnancy.

That's a good idea and then there won't be a wasted office visit!

> Then her family shows up
> and because of their pro-life beliefs, they
> feel the doctor has just force their daughter
> to murder her child.

What child? Like they would know if she could have possibly conceived anything. In the window after a rape, the morning-after pill is more like a preventative measure than abortion.

Yes, it is to prevent pregnancy, not remove it. Implantation has not occurred.

Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are drugs that act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization and possibly post-fertilization implantation of a blastocyst (embryo). ECPs are distinct from medical abortion methods that act after implantation

Yeah, that's basically how I see it too. But, other people see it as murdering a child. ...that's a pretty big difference. I think we should try to respect their point of view, given how serious the consequences are (for them).

What does it mean to respect their point of view while continuing to use the drugs? To say you respect their point of view while at the same time "murdering children" has to seem one of the most horrific examples of hypocrisy possible to them.

Well, it's a compromise, for sure. I also expect them to respect my opinion that it's not even a life. So, I wouldn't force someone in their family to do something they felt murdered a child. But, I wouldn't want them preventing someone in my family from doing something they think is murder (and we don't).

But, yeah, abortion is a contentious issue, and I think that's mainly because it's a matter of murdering a child for one side and freedom for the other.

Too bad the bible-thumpers are too ignorant to know the difference between prevention and abortion. Even still, the first four weeks of an embryo's development, they are just a ball of cells, not an actual baby. I support abortion just so far into a pregnancy... I haven't really decided how far, but I know I do not support it after the first trimester... if you don't know you are pregnant before then and haven't made a decision, then I personally feel the pregnancy should be seen to completion and the baby given up for adoption. For me, 'life' begins when that ball of cells develops a brain and can feel pain. Of course, in the cases of rape, incest and/or sexual abuse, I'm more lenient in my views. But if you don't know you are pregnant by the end of your first trimester, then where the hell are you?

I thought this article was going to be about something else.