Should doctors be allowed to deny patients treatment if it conflicts with their personal beliefs?

[sinkingfeeling]

New, live poll here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19193006/

Should doctors be allowed to deny patients treatment if it conflicts with their personal beliefs? * 27436 responses

Yes, doctors have to be able to live with their decisions.
18%

No, doctors are obligated to inform patients of all treatment options - no matter how they feel about it.
81%

I don't know.
1.4%

[greenbriar]

1. NO

and they should be disbarred or have their license taken away if they do

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. True that

[peace frog]

7. Absolutely agree

They can get their fundie asses into another line of work if they cannot fulfill their sworn duty as physicians.

[BlooInBloo]

23. If not arrested, or at the very least susceptible to a tort. Along with the entire practice.

[BOSSHOG]

2. I'd love to see a headline

Doctor denies treatment to christians because of their beliefs and actions.

To answer your question. No. Would such action not be a violation of the hypocratic oath?

[WindRavenX]

4. Well, some MDs have independent practices...that'd be hard to regulate.

Obviously, I'd be appalled beyond belief if there were doctors of any particular faith or belief system that denied treatment to anyone...it would go against what they, as doctors, pledged to do.

I think a few months ago there was some nutty Christian MD who refused to treat tattooed patients :eyes:

[yy4me]

5. No. The job of a doctor is to treat the body, not save the soul.

Leave the soul part to the church.

[Taverner]

6. Doctors should only have one code

The Hippocratic Oath

[dsc]

8. I think it depends

Certainly their beliefs shouldn't trump recognized classes (race, gender, etc). But I do think that as long as they are consistent they should be able to avoid certain procedures. I also think there is a big difference between an emergency room doctor and a doctor you plan to see. As a practical matter I wouldn't want to get treatment from a doctor who didn't wish to treat me. In short it depends.

[terisan]

9. Limited Licenses for Limited Practitioners.

I think they should be given limited licenses, required to display the license prominently, required to tell patients verbally and in writing that they are deliberately withholding information from the patient to satisfy themselves, and required to inform patients of nearby Full Licensed Practitioners

[Kerrytravelers]

48. Very interesting idea. I think I like it.

[Mark_Pogue]

10. NNOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

They take the "Hippocratic Oath"!!!

[avrdream]

34. That same Oath once required us to say we wouldn't perform abortions.

[somenhat]

51. Actually that's not in the oath

But isn't it the same craziness to say, for example, that all doctors MUST perform abortions? How much of the medical profession would quit, and how many Catholic hospitals would close down?

[tech3149]

11. Can you say Hippocratic oath? I knew you could n/t

[moondust]

12. They knew what they were getting into

before they started. If they didn't like it they should have become car salesmen.

Politicizing health care delivery is unethical, immoral, and unthinkable.

[somenhat]

13. Another point of view?

Isn't there a question as to what constitutes true "medical" treatment. Are you saying that no doctors should be allowed to opt out of prescribing viagra? What about an OB that refuses to perform a "female circumcision" requested by a Muslim family? I would think tattoo removal is not medically necessary, and not performing it is not really withholding necessary medical treatment.

[kestrel91316]

15. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your VERY brief stay.

Supporters of Christofascism and other versions of rampant fundieism need to find somewhere else to play......

You are no more concerned about female circumcision than I am about what you had for dinner last night.

[BlooInBloo]

18. What's up with all of these? Did high school just let out or something?

[moondust]

19. There are

medical and ethics boards that deal with "acceptable" and "inappropriate" treatments, etc., and they have disciplinary powers.

I think that if a prospective med student takes a good look at the elective treatments that exist today and assumes that there may be more of them in the future with technological advances, etc., and believes that s/he would have a personal problem either performing some of those treatments or referring the patient to someone who does perform them, then medicine is probably not the place for them.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Ah. Spoken like a good Lieberman-voter.

[moondust]

27. Wow. You really missed the boat.

Care to divulge the basis of your delusions?

[BlooInBloo]

29. You're right in line with holy-joe thinking...

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/03/13/lieberman-supports-rapist-rights-in-connecticut/

Congratulations.

[moondust]

32. Wrong.

Joe's talking about ER visits. I'm talking about non-emergent care in general like removing tattoos and prescribing Viagra, neither of which is done on an emergent basis.

As for ER visits, in the case of time-sensitive treatments like emergency contraception I agree with the poster over there that "if Catholics can’t provide that then they should get out of the fucking emergency medical business." If it's a legal treatment then the hospital should not be allowed to make its own policies that contravene the common law of the land.

In some cases it might only take 10 minutes to get to another hospital. But in other cases it might take hours. It's clearly wrong to refuse legal treatment.

[mainegreen]

20. "female circumcision" isn't legal. Viagra is.

That's the difference. The person has a choice: to become a doctor or not. If they choose to be a doctor they need to be a doctor, not a fucking pastor.

[mondo joe]

26. Simple answers to dumb questions:

1. Viagra is a legal medication - if its use is not contraindicated there is no reason to deny it.

2. "Female circumcision" is illegal, but also harmful. Duh.

3. Many providers aren't even qualified to remove tattoos. Non-issue.

[greenbriar]

28. ohhhhhhh a post and run

what an ignorant post

[BlooInBloo]

31. It's like whack-a-mole!

[somenhat]

36. Great welcome

You guys are crazy. We're supposed to be a free democracy - and doctors aren't exempted. Forcing someone to act against their basic beliefs in order to be able to practice medicine is, it seems to me, not consistent with a free society.

By the way, appreciate the name calling to a newbie on the board.

[mainegreen]

37. Free society, within reason. You are not free to impinge on others rights.

By refusing treatment the doctor impinges on another's rights.
The doctor is free however to not be a doctor.
Could you imagine an accountant who refused to allow certain legal deductions because he felt they were immoral?
Or lets make this even clearer: a chef who refused to seat african-americans in his restaurant because his belief was they were inferior.
They are all free to exercise their beliefs: the doctor need not be a doctor, the accountant need not be an accountant and the chef need not be a chef. That is their freedom.

[mondo joe]

38. No one is forced to be a physician. If they choose to take the oath, and get licensed,

and particularly if they are employed (rather than in a private practice) they should know what to expect.

[Nickster]

39. So would it be ok for a doctor to deny treatment because the patient was black? Would that be ok?

Where does it end?

[somenhat]

44. I'm not talking about discrimination

First, to say they can decide not to be doctors is naive. No doctor believed (or believes, I think) that when they take an oath to "do no harm" they are also taking an oath to "provide any medical treatment that is permitted by law." Now you say, "well you knew the rules when you signed up" - that's just silly.

Second, it is illegal to discriminate based on certain factors. Car dealers can't discriminate on who they sell to. But they can decide to only sell red cars, or Buicks, or Audis, or whatever. Even though yellow cars and Volvos are legal. You might even have a car dealer who only wants to sell hybrids, or Hummers. This is what freedom is all about.

[karlrschneider]

46. If anyone but you had written that, I would have said

"what an ignorant asshole"

[Kerrytravelers]

49. So, if a doctor is a pro-birther and never believes that abortion is necessary, even when the life

of the mother is in peril, that is ok, even when their patient dies? They are free to be a doctor and they are free to deny medical treatment to a patient.

Now, what if this is a rural area and this is the only doctor in town? That is a very likely possibility, as my family is originally from an area that small and rural- it still is to this very day. The nearest hospital is over 40 miles away. What is a woman suppose to do? Just die, I suppose.

When you look at an issue, you have to look at all situations where this issues can happen. If it happened in a major city where I live, there are plenty of other health options. In rural areas, choices are more limited.

[mondo joe]

50. Neither do physicians properly believe their personal biases should be substituted

for competent professional medical care.

You seem confused by that.

[somenhat]

53. Sure they do

It depends on what the action is. Find me a doctor who will perform an amputation, for example, just because a patient wants one. Doctors act in accordance with their own consciences on a thousand issues every day. I agree they should not be overriding the patient's wishes, but they should always be free to NOT act (excepting, I grant you, the true emergency situation). Not acting is a different thing than acting.

[mondo joe]

54. Try reading before replying. "Competent medical care" is what I said.

Amputating for no medical reason is not competent medical care.

[moondust]

55. Yes. There's specialty medicine.

Cardiology, radiology, ophthalmology...

OBG and urology are specialities as well.

The question is what do you, the eye doctor who believes it's okay to unlawfully discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, do when your retinal detachment patient also asks for a birth control prescription? Do you refer her to a specialist that does those things or do you try to suppress the treatment by refusing to make the referral? If you say you would refuse then you don't belong in medicine. And this was all known before you started med school.

[karlrschneider]

41. Okay, what if the doctor's beliefs are that black people are inherently dirty and diseased.

(There might actually be some who feel that way)...is that a valid reason to refuse treatment for "normal" ailments?

[jmowreader]

56. Tattoo removal is most definitely medically necessary

Ya gotta look at things from a different angle, man.

Very few people ever died from not having a tattoo removed. Or a nose job, permanent eyeliner, electrolysis...lots of minor outpatient surgical procedures. On one level, these things are not medically necessary.

From another angle: If a hospital were to lease a tattoo-removal laser, put it in a spare room somewhere and advertise they did tattoo removal, they'd get business. Lots of it. Tattoo removal not being inexpensive, the fees earned from removing ugly tats would allow them to at least partially subsidize indigent care.

[RedCappedBandit]

14. Hell no they should not.

[BlooInBloo]

16. No. Duh. (Assuming you mean non-medical beliefs.)

[slackmaster]

17. No, but I wouldn't trust a doctor to administer such a treatment

I'd appreciate the disclosure and find another doctor.

[Cleita]

22. I think they should be able to as long as they don't prevent the

patient seeking the medical help they need or want elsewhere. If they are the only doctor available for an emergency in a remote rural area for instance, then their obligation to science and their patient would trump any religious considerations IMHO.

[supernova]

24. Absolutely not!

I don't pay healthcare professionals to moralize to me about my life decisions. I do pay them for their knowledge, skill, compassion, and hopefully wise and soulful judgement.

The very idea that an MD or pharm would think he or she would know what's best for me as some kind of substitute parent crosses way too many boundaries for a free and open society.

[laylah]

25. Part of the Hipocratic oath

is to "...do no harm", not to "...do no harm unless I don't agree with their lifestyle, beliefs, religion, color of hair, etc".

[FormerDittoHead]

30. I just came across the article (LINK ENCLOSED) and I'm FUMING! K+R

...the story about the rape / morning after pill has me *VERY* upset...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

[mainer]

33. I wanna throw up. And I'm a medical professional

This is unbelievable. I'm going to start RIGHT NOW making sure my own state passes a law to give raped women EC when they ask for it in the E.R.

[karlrschneider]

47. It should be provided free. We fight fires, right? Even if nobody is in peril.

It's just a different kind of emergency.
:eyes:

[karlrschneider]

43. Here is a bit of info on "Doctor" Gish

https://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/pennsylvania/emergency_medicine_physicians/Gish_Martin.html

[alarimer]

35. The patients' beliefs or the doctor's beliefs?

If the doctor is opposed to birth control, for example, he has to refer the patient to someone who will prescribe it, at the very least, if that is possible. If not, he or she has to suck it up and deal with it and prescribe it.

If the patient has beliefs (let's say they are opposed to blood transfusions), the doctor has to give them transfusions anyway (specifically in an emergency situation in which the patient dies without such a transfusion). Withholding treatment here actually harms the patient and is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. I have no idea what the laws are in this area, though, but this is my feeling on the situation.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

40. Didn't they just go through this with the pharmicists?

If you're gonna be a doctor, BE A DOCTOR. It's not your bidness what your patient's bidness is. It has nothing to do with you, and it's not your right to try to second-hand control someone else in that manner.

Heal me or turn your fucking license in and start selling used cars.

[LeftishBrit]

42. No.

You should treat patients according to their medical needs, not your 'personal beliefs'.

If you can't do that, then you should go into a profession that does not require it.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. If you don't do your job, you should get fired

Unfortunately there aren't enough doctors, so that won't always happen.

[Johonny]

52. I see this poll as

18 % of voters see this as an abortion question, 81 % of voters see themselves on in the emergency room after a heart attach being told the hospital there in doesn't believe in fixing "icky" sick people.