Scenario: A man walks in with a prescription for birth control for his 14 year old aughter. The pharmacist asked if she was sexually active and he responded with, "No. She just lays there like her mother."
The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription and called the police. Turns out he really was raping his daughter. Should the pharmacist lose his license for refusing to fill a prescription?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
Scenario: A man walks in with a prescription for birth control for his 14 year old aughter. The pharmacist asked if she was sexually active and he responded with, "No. She just lays there like her mother."
The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription and called the police. Turns out he really was raping his daughter. Should the pharmacist lose his license for refusing to fill a prescription?
Mmm... I think in this case it's rather clear that, the doctor had a belief (suspicion) he could not ignore. To entertain the suspicion that rape was occuring, and to aid in it (by any means), would certainly have been to ignore his oath to 'do no harm' - and that's setting aside the plain fact that it would be morally irresponsible.
Why do you ask?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
That doesn't address the core issue here; it's pretty plain reason to say that if a doctor has the ability to transfer a patient to another care-giver without the patient being injured, he has every obligation to.
The real issue at stake is whether, assuming that time was a factor and he didn't have that option, he should be allowed to refuse service.
I DIDNT SAY HE DIDNT!!! OMG!!! every time i post i say that he should have transfered her, or i cant defend him in that case.
And also, he should be allowed to refuse service.
read my ****ing posts and get it right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"All people are born equal; it's what they do in life that makes them seperate"
1.) This isn't the first time this doctor has done this. If you read the article, he refused another previous rape victim the EC pill.
2.) This doctor was exercising MORAL beliefs, not religious. There is a difference folks. Let's get off the God topic please.
3.) This doctor needs to realize that in his line of work, you cannot bring your moral or religious views into the office. You went to school for 10+ years and are paid well over $100,000 a year to SAVE lives, to HELP people who can't help themselves.
Frankly, this doctor is a monster in my opinion. One that I know I would pesonally beat repeatedly until I couldn't lift my arms anymore. He could have easily recommended her to another doctor but according to the article, made no such attempt. That to me makes him just as guilty as the rapist.
Medical care should NEVER be refused. Ever. I don't care if you're a serial killer or Judy who wants an abortion because it's a high-risk pregnancy. Criminals will get what's coming to them and if Judy wants an abortion, stop playing high and mighty and let HER sort it out with God. It's not your job or your responsibility to judge her and if God is as forgiving as all of you say he is, you don't have anything to worry about. These doctors are going to jeopardize my life and well being because of their convictions, whether moral or religious? I don't think so.
What?
Moral beliefs... not, religious? Didn't he say, quote, "It's against my religion"?
How can we possibly get off the God topic? You may be able to force a topic into a vacuum, but you can't hold a discussion in one!
Wherever we abjure our ideals against the taints of their reality, we have shut off all hope of finding them for the evils they really are.
Touche! Missed that part. Comment retracted.
However, the rest still applies. Regardless of his beliefs, the doctor still refused to give aid to a victim and patient in need. Wouldn't you agree that's wrong?
However, the rest still applies. Regardless of his beliefs, the doctor still refused to give aid to a victim and patient in need. Wouldn't you agree that's wrong?
The woman was not in any physical danger though. It's a completely different situation than if a person is bleeding to death and the doctor won't stitch up the wound. For one, she already had a sex crimes counsellor, and I'm sure finding a doctor willing to prescribe that would be well within that person's line of work, and the doctor would have known that. At worst all he really did was delay her for a little bit. He did not put her in any danger at all. He did no harm. All he did was stand up for what he believes, a right that we all have in this country, and a right we all would hate to lose.
It's not your job or your responsibility to judge her and if God is as forgiving as all of you say he is, you don't have anything to worry about. These doctors are going to jeopardize my life and well being because of their convictions, whether moral or religious? I don't think so.
I don't see where anyone's life is being jeopardized in this discussion...except the baby's, but no one is talking about that...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
At worst all he really did was delay her for a little bit. He did not put her in any danger at all. He did no harm. All he did was stand up for what he believes, a right that we all have in this country, and a right we all would hate to lose.
Its a common tactic that pro-life doctors and politicians use. They delay and delay the woman until its too late for her to terminate the pregnancy.
This isn't as innocent as you make it sound. It just so happens that this doctor's beliefs are in conflict with the rights of his patient. Whenever a conflict like that occurs the patient should always take priority.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
Its a common tactic that pro-life doctors and politicians use. They delay and delay the woman until its too late for her to terminate the pregnancy.
This isn't as innocent as you make it sound. It just so happens that this doctor's beliefs are in conflict with the rights of his patient. Whenever a conflict like that occurs the patient should always take priority.
It's not like he was the only doctor around for 500 miles. He knew good and well that she could find another doctor, probably the same night, who would prescribe the pills.
Forcing someone to kill another person is never anyone's right. In the doctors mind that's what he would be doing if he had carried through her wishes. In fact, you could argue that he was only keeping to his oath by not prescribing the pills, as the pills would do much more harm to the baby than the lack of pills would do to the woman.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
It's not like he was the only doctor around for 500 miles. He knew good and well that she could find another doctor, probably the same night, who would prescribe the pills.
Forcing someone to kill another person is never anyone's right. In the doctors mind that's what he would be doing if he had carried through her wishes. In fact, you could argue that he was only keeping to his oath by not prescribing the pills, as the pills would do much more harm to the baby than the lack of pills would do to the woman.
The doctor did no harm? How about the psychological abuse he inflicted on her? This woman had just been through probably the most traumatic experience of her life and went to this man for help. Instead of recommending another doctor, the guy just said no...and you're going to sit there and tell me he did nothing wrong?
The doctor did no harm? How about the psychological abuse he inflicted on her? This woman had just been through probably the most traumatic experience of her life and went to this man for help. Instead of recommending another doctor, the guy just said no...and you're going to sit there and tell me he did nothing wrong?
He did not refuse to help her. He conducted the rape kit exam and wold no doubt do anything he could to help the police catch her rapist. If the doctor's attitude towards her was bad, then that is inexcusable, and I do not defend it. However, the woman may have misinterpreted his demeanor due to the emotional durress she was under, or maybe he was at the end of a 12 hour shift and completely exhausted. So I'm not going to judge him about his perceived "aloofness" one way or the other.
Now putting aside his mannerisms (which, again, I admit may have been wrong), did his actual act of sending her to another doctor really do that much harm? There was a rape counsellor there at the hospital already to help her. She probably just had to walk down the hall a little ways to find another doctor, but she couldn't go see a gynacologist for 2 and a half years because of that? I think that's a bit of overreaction (I'm not minimalizing the atrociousness of the rape, I only mean her reaction to the doctors actions). Note that she said she was afraid of being judged "again". The doctor was not judging her and his actions had no reflection on what he thought of her as a person, only what he believed right for himself to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Well she mistook his actions as "judging" her so there must have been some tone or mannerism that she perceived from him for her to come to that. My stand is that service should never be refused by a healthcare professional regardless of his/her beliefs. If it was against his beliefs, then he should have contacted another doctor immediately or at the very least provided the woman with other options. The article makes it out to sound like he made no such attempt to do this, said no, and that was the end of it.
I just think he could have done more, perhaps explained himself better or gone that extra step.. "I'm sorry, I can't give you this pill ma'am. But I'll call someone right now and let you talk to someone who can."
Frankly, this doctor is a monster in my opinion. One that I know I would pesonally beat repeatedly until I couldn't lift my arms anymore. He could have easily recommended her to another doctor but according to the article, made no such attempt. That to me makes him just as guilty as the rapist.
Medical care should NEVER be refused. Ever. I don't care if you're a serial killer or Judy who wants an abortion because it's a high-risk pregnancy. Criminals will get what's coming to them and if Judy wants an abortion, stop playing high and mighty and let HER sort it out with God. It's not your job or your responsibility to judge her and if God is as forgiving as all of you say he is, you don't have anything to worry about. These doctors are going to jeopardize my life and well being because of their convictions, whether moral or religious? I don't think so.
What is medical care? Is it wrong for a doctor to refuse to euthanize a patient? Why is this pill "medical care" and pulling the plug not? The objection to both is fundamentally the same: it's unethical. No doubt our doctor would respond to this by saying that he doesn't recognize contraception as a form of medical care.
Well she mistook his actions as "judging" her so there must have been some tone or mannerism that she perceived from him for her to come to that.
Have you ever dealt with someone in extreme emotional distress? This woman had just been through the most horrifying experience of her life; not only her body but her general trust in the goodness of the world was betrayed. In such a flayed state, it can be difficult to distinguish an impersonal obstacle from persecution, difficult to see when someone isn't trying to hurt you. It's no fault of her own, but the woman's report of the doctor's demeanor must be held suspect.
His actions, though, do say something about him that I mislike.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
1.) This isn't the first time this doctor has done this. If you read the article, he refused another previous rape victim the EC pill.
2.) This doctor was exercising MORAL beliefs, not religious. There is a difference folks. Let's get off the God topic please.
3.) This doctor needs to realize that in his line of work, you cannot bring your moral or religious views into the office. You went to school for 10+ years and are paid well over $100,000 a year to SAVE lives, to HELP people who can't help themselves.
Frankly, this doctor is a monster in my opinion. One that I know I would pesonally beat repeatedly until I couldn't lift my arms anymore. He could have easily recommended her to another doctor but according to the article, made no such attempt. That to me makes him just as guilty as the rapist.
Medical care should NEVER be refused. Ever. I don't care if you're a serial killer or Judy who wants an abortion because it's a high-risk pregnancy. Criminals will get what's coming to them and if Judy wants an abortion, stop playing high and mighty and let HER sort it out with God. It's not your job or your responsibility to judge her and if God is as forgiving as all of you say he is, you don't have anything to worry about. These doctors are going to jeopardize my life and well being because of their convictions, whether moral or religious? I don't think so.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Do you <snip> have any real experience or contact with the medical world outside of fabricated scenarios?
Almost every doctor you will meet and actually talk to will tell you that the they consider their job a moral obligation - and that their morals guide their work. No real doctor will refuse life-or-death treatment: They DO abide by the Hippocratic oath. However, if a doctor believes that abortion and/or contraception is wrong, they are completely within their rights to both refuse treatment, and to refuse referring the patient to another doctor that will provide the service. Heck, ask any doctor that does - and I know several that do on a regular basis - and they will tell you that it is entirely the patient's responsibility to find nonessential treatments. (By nonessential, I mean not immediately life-threatening)
A final note to those that believe that doctors are adequately compensated for their work:
No, they aren't. Until doctors are making more than athletes, lawyers, and businessmen, they aren't getting paid enough.
A final note to those that believe that doctors are adequately compensated for their work:
No, they aren't. Until doctors are making more than athletes, lawyers, and businessmen, they aren't getting paid enough.
An interesting claim.
We're curious, though. Given your (supposed) premise:
Doctors should make more than athletes, lawyers, and businessmen, but dont.
what makes "doctors aren't compensated enough" a better conclusion than "athletes, lawyers, and businessmen are compensated too much?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When you really know somebody, you can't hate them...or maybe it's just that you can't really know them until you stop hating them."
We're curious, though. Given your (supposed) premise:
Doctors should make more than athletes, lawyers, and businessmen, but dont.
what makes "doctors aren't compensated enough" a better conclusion than "athletes, lawyers, and businessmen are compensated too much?"
Nothing at all - Both are equally valid. The spirit behind that statement is that doctors should be on a higher financial level than other professionals, both due to their dedication and the importance of their work. However, people seem to put more value into entertainment and money than preserving life, and so it shows :/
However, The reason I stated it the way that I do, is that I have personally seen how badly a patient can treat a doctor, and I have seen it happen too often for my own taste. So instead of stating that I would want to demean those other professionals, I would prefer to reward doctors more for their work.
Its a common tactic that pro-life doctors and politicians use. They delay and delay the woman until its too late for her to terminate the pregnancy.
This isn't as innocent as you make it sound. It just so happens that this doctor's beliefs are in conflict with the rights of his patient. Whenever a conflict like that occurs the patient should always take priority.
Sorry chrono, but the patient does not have a right to any nonessential treatment they want - such things are up to the discretion of the doctor. If she was dying of (insert terrible, but curable disease here), of course she has a right to treatment. But if she was raped and/or knocked up, and wants an abortion/pills, the doctor has no professional or moral obligation to render those services, or even point her to a doctor that will. Any person can go to the local library, get on a computer, and google/call up local doctors until they find one.
For anyone who may want to refute anything I say, refer to this statement instead of any scenario I may present (as this is really what I am defending):
"If a patient desires a nonessential (read: not life threatening) treatment of any sort, it is entirely the responsibility of the patient to find a doctor that will render this service."
If you don't think the average doctor is better paid than the average Lawyer, businessman, or athlete, you're mistaken. There are of course some athletes and CEOs and high-powered attorneys who make much more than the average doctor, but this argument ignores how much highly-qualified specialists can receive for their work.
Now factor in Malpractise Insurance - which is nearly doubling each damned year - and propensity to be sued/risk of loss from suit - and doctors make quite a bit less, for far more important and stressful work.
Taking that graph in - a businessman can finish school in 6 years. Lawyers take 7-8 years. Your graph dokesnt even show professional athletes. A doctor, taking in residency (which is far worse than regular school) can take between 10 and 13 years. Funny how similar their incomes are.
That depends entirely on the time sensitivity of the issue that requires treatment. Given how time-sensitive contraceptives are, it is the moral obligation of a health care provider to provide whatever treatment they are able to.
I can't see how you can say this in good conscience - you are completely trampling upon the doctor's moral beliefs, which is often times the very reason they became a doctor in the first place.
Additionally, many doctors view a pregnancy as a human being, and rendering contraceptive services would be going directly against their Hippocratic oath. Given that giving birth is not life threatening - merely inconvenient and unwanted in that case - It is still the patients responsibility to find treatment. (See my last sentence/main argument) Please, please dont go off on time sensitivity. Any person can, within minutes, look up and call 5-10 doctors and ask if they offer contraceptive services.
Still, I will ask that you focus less on the individual situation and more on my reasoning for why it is right: "If a patient desires a nonessential (read: not life threatening) treatment of any sort, it is entirely the responsibility of the patient to find a doctor that will render this service."
I can understand demanding some ammount of effort from patients to find their own treatment if the treatment is reasonably available.
My first question is, how much money should we expect a rape victim to shell out? How many miles should she be expected to drive/fly to the next city/state/country? How many hoops should scared teenage girls and battered women have to jump through? How much money should we charge them for their pain and suffering?
My second question is, how much access did this woman have to treatment in her area? Was there any access to treatment in her area?
Maybe we can expect people to fly to Thailand for their sex changes, but as far as nonessential treatment goes I'd think that treatment for forced pregnancy leans a little closer to essential than frivolous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
I can understand demanding some ammount of effort from patients to find their own treatment if the treatment is reasonably available.
My first question is, how much money should we expect a rape victim to shell out? How many miles should she be expected to drive/fly to the next city/state/country? How many hoops should scared teenage girls and battered women have to jump through? How much money should we charge them for their pain and suffering?
My second question is, how much access did this woman have to treatment in her area? Was there any access to treatment in her area?
Maybe we can expect people to fly to Thailand for their sex changes, but as far as nonessential treatment goes I'd think that treatment for forced pregnancy leans a little closer to essential than frivolous.
Even small cities have more than one doctor in close proximity. In Illinois, where I live, there is no shortage of doctors that will do this - and they may be several hours away, but people will go that far to get the procedures they need.
If there is no doctor willing to treat a girl in her area, then it is STILL her responsibility to find treatment elsewhere - you cannot compromise the doctor's morals and force him to do something something that he believes is completely wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
Do you have any actual data, or are you going to continue to speak in vapid and dire warnings?
Yes, I do. In several Chicago Medical Society meetings, malpractise was discussed and is still a critical issue due to its rapid increase in our state. Personally, A large number of my and my family friends are doctors - And the four ob/gyns I know, including my mother, have had their malpractise double in the last two years (up to ~60 grand this year).
While doctors spend more time in school, they don't start off making more money - a friend of mine has just become one of the first lisenced robotic proctologists in the States (after his 13 years of school) and is now starting a fellowship, where he will be making well under 100 grand for the next 4 years, while paying malpractise - only afterwards will he be making money.
However, a graduate from a good business school can start off making 60+ grand post-grad (and I would know, I am a business major), and the sky is the limit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
OK, never mind, I read the article again. The rape counseler did find another physician to give the woman the pill.
If this were in the bible belt however, say... Georgia (where I used to live), she would have had more difficulty though.
Okay, maybe the doctor shouldn't have to do procedures that are against his religion but I still think he should be expected to provide information to his patients when he is asked. If he doesn't want to help then the least he can do is point the way to help instead of standing in the way.
*edit*
Oh, and I certainly don't think doctors should ever humiliate victims. What this doctor did actually caused more psychological harm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
There is an imposter among us...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fair enough.
There is an imposter among us...
The pharmacist refused to fill the prescription and called the police. Turns out he really was raping his daughter. Should the pharmacist lose his license for refusing to fill a prescription?
Mmm... I think in this case it's rather clear that, the doctor had a belief (suspicion) he could not ignore. To entertain the suspicion that rape was occuring, and to aid in it (by any means), would certainly have been to ignore his oath to 'do no harm' - and that's setting aside the plain fact that it would be morally irresponsible.
Why do you ask?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Pharmacists aren't doctors. Not that it really matters; people shouldn't be harming anyway.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Whoops, missed that.
But it only brings up the question again: What does Winter's scenario have to do with the heretofore discussion?
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I DIDNT SAY HE DIDNT!!! OMG!!! every time i post i say that he should have transfered her, or i cant defend him in that case.
And also, he should be allowed to refuse service.
read my ****ing posts and get it right.
1.) This isn't the first time this doctor has done this. If you read the article, he refused another previous rape victim the EC pill.
2.) This doctor was exercising MORAL beliefs, not religious. There is a difference folks. Let's get off the God topic please.
3.) This doctor needs to realize that in his line of work, you cannot bring your moral or religious views into the office. You went to school for 10+ years and are paid well over $100,000 a year to SAVE lives, to HELP people who can't help themselves.
Frankly, this doctor is a monster in my opinion. One that I know I would pesonally beat repeatedly until I couldn't lift my arms anymore. He could have easily recommended her to another doctor but according to the article, made no such attempt. That to me makes him just as guilty as the rapist.
Medical care should NEVER be refused. Ever. I don't care if you're a serial killer or Judy who wants an abortion because it's a high-risk pregnancy. Criminals will get what's coming to them and if Judy wants an abortion, stop playing high and mighty and let HER sort it out with God. It's not your job or your responsibility to judge her and if God is as forgiving as all of you say he is, you don't have anything to worry about. These doctors are going to jeopardize my life and well being because of their convictions, whether moral or religious? I don't think so.
EDH:
Karn v3.0
What?
Moral beliefs... not, religious? Didn't he say, quote, "It's against my religion"?
How can we possibly get off the God topic? You may be able to force a topic into a vacuum, but you can't hold a discussion in one!
Wherever we abjure our ideals against the taints of their reality, we have shut off all hope of finding them for the evils they really are.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Touche! Missed that part. Comment retracted.
However, the rest still applies. Regardless of his beliefs, the doctor still refused to give aid to a victim and patient in need. Wouldn't you agree that's wrong?
EDH:
Karn v3.0
The woman was not in any physical danger though. It's a completely different situation than if a person is bleeding to death and the doctor won't stitch up the wound. For one, she already had a sex crimes counsellor, and I'm sure finding a doctor willing to prescribe that would be well within that person's line of work, and the doctor would have known that. At worst all he really did was delay her for a little bit. He did not put her in any danger at all. He did no harm. All he did was stand up for what he believes, a right that we all have in this country, and a right we all would hate to lose.
I don't see where anyone's life is being jeopardized in this discussion...except the baby's, but no one is talking about that...
Veritas. Aequitas.
Its a common tactic that pro-life doctors and politicians use. They delay and delay the woman until its too late for her to terminate the pregnancy.
This isn't as innocent as you make it sound. It just so happens that this doctor's beliefs are in conflict with the rights of his patient. Whenever a conflict like that occurs the patient should always take priority.
There is an imposter among us...
It's not like he was the only doctor around for 500 miles. He knew good and well that she could find another doctor, probably the same night, who would prescribe the pills.
Forcing someone to kill another person is never anyone's right. In the doctors mind that's what he would be doing if he had carried through her wishes. In fact, you could argue that he was only keeping to his oath by not prescribing the pills, as the pills would do much more harm to the baby than the lack of pills would do to the woman.
Veritas. Aequitas.
So what does that say about him?
The doctor did no harm? How about the psychological abuse he inflicted on her? This woman had just been through probably the most traumatic experience of her life and went to this man for help. Instead of recommending another doctor, the guy just said no...and you're going to sit there and tell me he did nothing wrong?
EDH:
Karn v3.0
He did not refuse to help her. He conducted the rape kit exam and wold no doubt do anything he could to help the police catch her rapist. If the doctor's attitude towards her was bad, then that is inexcusable, and I do not defend it. However, the woman may have misinterpreted his demeanor due to the emotional durress she was under, or maybe he was at the end of a 12 hour shift and completely exhausted. So I'm not going to judge him about his perceived "aloofness" one way or the other.
Now putting aside his mannerisms (which, again, I admit may have been wrong), did his actual act of sending her to another doctor really do that much harm? There was a rape counsellor there at the hospital already to help her. She probably just had to walk down the hall a little ways to find another doctor, but she couldn't go see a gynacologist for 2 and a half years because of that? I think that's a bit of overreaction (I'm not minimalizing the atrociousness of the rape, I only mean her reaction to the doctors actions). Note that she said she was afraid of being judged "again". The doctor was not judging her and his actions had no reflection on what he thought of her as a person, only what he believed right for himself to do.
Veritas. Aequitas.
I just think he could have done more, perhaps explained himself better or gone that extra step.. "I'm sorry, I can't give you this pill ma'am. But I'll call someone right now and let you talk to someone who can."
EDH:
Karn v3.0
Read again in a cool hour what you have written.
What is medical care? Is it wrong for a doctor to refuse to euthanize a patient? Why is this pill "medical care" and pulling the plug not? The objection to both is fundamentally the same: it's unethical. No doubt our doctor would respond to this by saying that he doesn't recognize contraception as a form of medical care.
Have you ever dealt with someone in extreme emotional distress? This woman had just been through the most horrifying experience of her life; not only her body but her general trust in the goodness of the world was betrayed. In such a flayed state, it can be difficult to distinguish an impersonal obstacle from persecution, difficult to see when someone isn't trying to hurt you. It's no fault of her own, but the woman's report of the doctor's demeanor must be held suspect.
His actions, though, do say something about him that I mislike.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. Do you <snip> have any real experience or contact with the medical world outside of fabricated scenarios?
Almost every doctor you will meet and actually talk to will tell you that the they consider their job a moral obligation - and that their morals guide their work. No real doctor will refuse life-or-death treatment: They DO abide by the Hippocratic oath. However, if a doctor believes that abortion and/or contraception is wrong, they are completely within their rights to both refuse treatment, and to refuse referring the patient to another doctor that will provide the service. Heck, ask any doctor that does - and I know several that do on a regular basis - and they will tell you that it is entirely the patient's responsibility to find nonessential treatments. (By nonessential, I mean not immediately life-threatening)
A final note to those that believe that doctors are adequately compensated for their work:
No, they aren't. Until doctors are making more than athletes, lawyers, and businessmen, they aren't getting paid enough.
Flaming Removed and Warned
We're curious, though. Given your (supposed) premise: what makes "doctors aren't compensated enough" a better conclusion than "athletes, lawyers, and businessmen are compensated too much?"
Nothing at all - Both are equally valid. The spirit behind that statement is that doctors should be on a higher financial level than other professionals, both due to their dedication and the importance of their work. However, people seem to put more value into entertainment and money than preserving life, and so it shows :/
However, The reason I stated it the way that I do, is that I have personally seen how badly a patient can treat a doctor, and I have seen it happen too often for my own taste. So instead of stating that I would want to demean those other professionals, I would prefer to reward doctors more for their work.
Sorry chrono, but the patient does not have a right to any nonessential treatment they want - such things are up to the discretion of the doctor. If she was dying of (insert terrible, but curable disease here), of course she has a right to treatment. But if she was raped and/or knocked up, and wants an abortion/pills, the doctor has no professional or moral obligation to render those services, or even point her to a doctor that will. Any person can go to the local library, get on a computer, and google/call up local doctors until they find one.
For anyone who may want to refute anything I say, refer to this statement instead of any scenario I may present (as this is really what I am defending):
"If a patient desires a nonessential (read: not life threatening) treatment of any sort, it is entirely the responsibility of the patient to find a doctor that will render this service."
Now factor in Malpractise Insurance - which is nearly doubling each damned year - and propensity to be sued/risk of loss from suit - and doctors make quite a bit less, for far more important and stressful work.
Taking that graph in - a businessman can finish school in 6 years. Lawyers take 7-8 years. Your graph dokesnt even show professional athletes. A doctor, taking in residency (which is far worse than regular school) can take between 10 and 13 years. Funny how similar their incomes are.
I can't see how you can say this in good conscience - you are completely trampling upon the doctor's moral beliefs, which is often times the very reason they became a doctor in the first place.
Additionally, many doctors view a pregnancy as a human being, and rendering contraceptive services would be going directly against their Hippocratic oath. Given that giving birth is not life threatening - merely inconvenient and unwanted in that case - It is still the patients responsibility to find treatment. (See my last sentence/main argument) Please, please dont go off on time sensitivity. Any person can, within minutes, look up and call 5-10 doctors and ask if they offer contraceptive services.
Still, I will ask that you focus less on the individual situation and more on my reasoning for why it is right:
"If a patient desires a nonessential (read: not life threatening) treatment of any sort, it is entirely the responsibility of the patient to find a doctor that will render this service."
My first question is, how much money should we expect a rape victim to shell out? How many miles should she be expected to drive/fly to the next city/state/country? How many hoops should scared teenage girls and battered women have to jump through? How much money should we charge them for their pain and suffering?
My second question is, how much access did this woman have to treatment in her area? Was there any access to treatment in her area?
Maybe we can expect people to fly to Thailand for their sex changes, but as far as nonessential treatment goes I'd think that treatment for forced pregnancy leans a little closer to essential than frivolous.
There is an imposter among us...
Even small cities have more than one doctor in close proximity. In Illinois, where I live, there is no shortage of doctors that will do this - and they may be several hours away, but people will go that far to get the procedures they need.
If there is no doctor willing to treat a girl in her area, then it is STILL her responsibility to find treatment elsewhere - you cannot compromise the doctor's morals and force him to do something something that he believes is completely wrong.
Yes, I do. In several Chicago Medical Society meetings, malpractise was discussed and is still a critical issue due to its rapid increase in our state. Personally, A large number of my and my family friends are doctors - And the four ob/gyns I know, including my mother, have had their malpractise double in the last two years (up to ~60 grand this year).
While doctors spend more time in school, they don't start off making more money - a friend of mine has just become one of the first lisenced robotic proctologists in the States (after his 13 years of school) and is now starting a fellowship, where he will be making well under 100 grand for the next 4 years, while paying malpractise - only afterwards will he be making money.
However, a graduate from a good business school can start off making 60+ grand post-grad (and I would know, I am a business major), and the sky is the limit.
If this were in the bible belt however, say... Georgia (where I used to live), she would have had more difficulty though.
Okay, maybe the doctor shouldn't have to do procedures that are against his religion but I still think he should be expected to provide information to his patients when he is asked. If he doesn't want to help then the least he can do is point the way to help instead of standing in the way.
*edit*
Oh, and I certainly don't think doctors should ever humiliate victims. What this doctor did actually caused more psychological harm.
There is an imposter among us...