This weekend, however, it emerged that Sainsbury’s is also allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds.

The BMA said it had received reports of Muslim students who did not want to learn anything about alcohol or the effects of overconsumption. “They are so opposed to the consumption of it they don’t want to learn anything about it,” said a spokesman.

The GMC said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate”. Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2603966.ece

Even if it disagrees with a Catholic doctor, he is, by law, required to tell you of your options. He would likely be sued for malpractice if he or she did not let the woman know her options. So in such a case the law of the land supersedes his religious beliefs. And, in the case of a rape victim, I’m not sure a Catholic doctor would not prescribe the morning after pill (just to be safe).

Here’s a study from 2003:

A recent survey found that the majority of Catholic hospitals said they would not give women emergency contraception, even those who have been raped.
…
The survey, commissioned by Catholics for a Free Choice, a Washington-based advocacy group that promotes issues of gender equality and reproductive health, found that only 28 percent of Catholic hospitals in 47 states and the District of Columbia would provide emergency contraception, also known as the “morning-after pill” or EC, to rape victims. Fifty-five percent of Catholic hospitals wouldn’t dispense emergency contraception under any circumstances.
…
Washington State, Illinois and California each has a law that requires emergency rooms to provide rape victims with information about emergency contraception. In Washington State, hospitals must provide the pills to rape victims if the women aren’t already pregnant. But 6 out of 18 Catholic hospitals here told women inquiring about emergency contraception over the telephone that it wasn’t available in their emergency rooms.

I’m not making this stuff up. It’s a real problem for women and if we start excusing it, it’ll only get worse. Only 3 states have laws (as of 2003, it may be more by now) and even in them, the Catholic hospitals were not following the law because they are claiming they have to obey their religious training above the laws of the state.

How is that “doing no harm” to women they are supposed to be providing care for, Calvin? It seems to me that you’re arguing they should be able to do as they please and as their particular religion dictates, even if they’re squashing a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body and her life.

But, by and large, we’re not talking about rape victims as, as I stated earlier, rape victims comprise 1% of all abortions. If this is the case, then doctors are CLEARLY prescribing the morning after pill in the case of rape on a large scale. Is this not a hard thing to see? In most cases we’re talking about a person’s desire to do as the please without feeling judged for doing it.

Rape victims are only the most egregious victims of this kind of mindset. In other instances, women trying to get a prescription for birth control pills filled at their neighborhood pharmacy have been told to go elsewhere because the pharmacist on duty doesn’t believe in contraception and won’t dispense the pill.

That’s ridiculous. A pharmacist’s job is to safely and accurately dispense medication prescribed by a doctor and requested by a patient. If they can’t bring themselves to do that non-judgmentally, they need to change professions.

#

spin sycle said,

October 7, 2007 at 10:08 am

I don’t know, it still reeks of discrimination to me.

I agree with you there. I think regardless of whether it is a public school or not they could get sued over discrimination for this I think as it specifies religion and Christianity in particular.

The modern version has dropped allusions to the Green Pantheon and the proscription against abortions, but the oath still stems from a clearly religious understanding of what the gods or someone above and beyond wants from those who handle the lives of others.

The Hippocratic Oath, for the record, was written by a fringe group of unpopular doctors 2000 years ago. In addition to banning abortion, they ban all surgery. Don’t you hate it when doctors violate the Oath?

Second, the people I have known who have used Planned Parenthood are generally from low income families as nearly 90% of Planned Parenthoods are in urban locations–black and Hispanic areas. So, you are likely correct about a person needing to be in a certain income bracket in order to receive free services and birth control. I will have to look into it more. Still, they hand out condoms like lollipops and then provide abortions when they are not used properly.

Again, as a person who has actually been to a Planned Parenthood, I can assure you that white people use PP too. In fact, there are more minorities in urban areas- but there are also more people, period, and that is why PP’s end up in urban areas. They just opened a PP in Aurora, Illinois, an area that is 81% white. Are they targeting minorities? And if I want condoms from PP, they cost me money. Now, the people at the PP are very nice, for the most part, and I have heard of people getting their appointments at even more reduced prices when they flat out stated that they just couldn’t pay for contraception. But I have paid for every service I have received, and full price, so I don’t know where you are getting that condoms=lollipops.

Which brings me to my third problem. I’m going to assume your freedom and desire to have sex free from consequences is a big area where we differ. I believe people should be married in order to have sex.

Good for you. Enjoy celibacy. I am sure that you are one of the 5% of people who don’t have sex before marriage, as a recent study indicates.

Why is your sex life more important than a doctor’s deeply held religious beliefs?

Because my sexual health is as important as my physical or mental health. Because it is the doctor’s job to worry- and help me regarding- my sexual health.

He simply says, “I cannot, in good conscience, do these things without violating my religious beliefs or my understanding of the oath I took upon becoming a doctor.”

Which, to me, will come off as judgmental. Let’s imagine that doctors hate smokers. Can a doctor, in good consciousness, say, “I don’t believe smoking is good for you, and I think your lung cancer is punishment for smoking when you knew it was unhealthy. I cannot in good conscience help violate God’s punishment”? How can a doctor asy they are too morally pure to help me with my health without coming off as jerks?

Basically, what I hear you saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that your right to do whatever you please with your body in whatever manner you please is no concern of the doctor’s and he should cater to you because its his job to give you whatever you want to make sure you can have a sex life free of consequences? Does that about sum it up?

What is the deal with you and sex and consequences? I think you need to look deeply into your beliefs and ask yourself if the basis of these beliefs has anything to do with punishing women for their sexuality- because that is how I am reading you. Prescribing me birth control is not catering to my every whim, it is doing the job a doctor signs up to do. Do car manufactures include seat belts to let me drive without consequences? If I get sick as a result of a lifestyle- say not eating healthy or not getting enough sleep or falling and twisting an ankle when I am dancing for the pure sexy fun of it— does that mean the doctor is catering to me and my life free of consequences? Or does it mean she is helping me when I need help?

On the reverse side of that, patients must realize that they need to take responsibility for their actions

.

You, of course, realize that people’s choices are a result of our society and the lives we are born into and how we are raised and our DNA and many other factors beyond our control, right?

A person should not have sex with everyone they want just because they know they can get an abortion.

So can I have all the lesbian sex I want, then?

(I think we both agree that prostitution is wrong, for religious and societal reasons. I also do not think you are arguing for wanton sexual promiscuity in your own life.)

Again, not about my sex life, and you have no idea what my views are on prostitution based on anything I said here. Let’s not draw conclusions that have nothing to do with the conversation, mkay?

Where does a person draw the line? Can we do whatever we want and just expect a doctor to violate his conscience any time because our “rights” always supersede his or her personal convictions?

Why, again, should the doctors right to be a religious person supersede my right to get medical care that I need?

Yes, what a doctor does say or prescribe does affect us. However, you seem to be disregarding the biggest equation. YOU. You affect yourself more than any doctor ever will and in bigger ways than any doctor will. I’m not clear on the numbers of doctors making horribly bad decisions (so this may seem bigger than it is for the purposes of our conversation), but I should hope people realize (before they see a doctor) how much their own lifestyles and practices affect them.

Um, ok. I get that. I know that sex will leave me pregnant and suicidal and worthless to future suitors (pretty much verbatim on my high school sex ed class, BTW). But that doesn’t mean doctors can ignore my health needs even if they are the result of poor choices.

By the way, how the heck did we move from Lipscomb’s hiring practices to THIS conversation?

Because it is an important conversation to be having in light of all the recent pharmacists who refuse to fulfill birth control prescriptions for women.

Which brings me to my third problem. I’m going to assume your freedom and desire to have sex free from consequences is a big area where we differ. I believe people should be married in order to have sex. As much as I disagree with God on the matter (as I would LOVE to have sex with my girlfriend), He tends to be right and I tend to be wrong.

Calvin, why does it have to be based on God? What if tomorrow you decided there is no God, where would you stand? Esp if that is the only reason for your sexual morals and values? Don’t you think you need more reason than JUST God? Now think about it for a minute before you shout that I’m picking on you…

The reason why I’m celebate is because I see no need to sleep around. To do so could not only mean getting pregnant and dying (in my case that is), but also getting an STD or worse yet, AIDS.

No, I didn’t have my tubes tied, even though the dr said if I had another child, I could die. My younger son was born at a Catholic hospital, a month early because I had a form of toxemia, but even so, another child could mean my life. The reason why I didn’t have my tubes tied some place else was because leaving my first husband, with my sons, was much more important. So, it never got done.

My second marriage I just used birthcontrol, but that is beside the point. Now that I’m not married again, I see no reason to just snag a man for sex. For me, making love has meaning to it and not meant to be done with just anyone. It is sharing a part of me, with the ultmost trust, that I would not share with anyone else. It is, do I dare say, a spiritual thing. Not religiously spiritual, but another sort of spirituality- the emotional connection between two people who love each other above and beyond friendship. (If you are a Trek fan and read Peter David’s book, the word Imzadi is a good example.)

To have sex just to have sex makes it meaningless (IMO) and a great health risk at that- on many different levels.

Even if it disagrees with a Catholic doctor, he is, by law, required to tell you of your options. He would likely be sued for malpractice if he or she did not let the woman know her options. So in such a case the law of the land supersedes his religious beliefs. And, in the case of a rape victim, I’m not sure a Catholic doctor would not prescribe the morning after pill (just to be safe).

But, by and large, we’re not talking about rape victims as, as I stated earlier, rape victims comprise 1% of all abortions. If this is the case, then doctors are CLEARLY prescribing the morning after pill in the case of rape on a large scale. Is this not a hard thing to see? In most cases we’re talking about a person’s desire to do as the please without feeling judged for doing it.

First, doctor’s take an oath to “Do no harm,” not an oath to help people. (I make this distinction because what a person thinks will help themselves may be very different than what the doctor believe to be necessary. Of course, this MAY simply be a matter of semantics.) The Hippocratic Oath is also RELIGIOUS in nature–praying to the Greek Pantheon of Gods. The oath also disallowed a physician to violate one’s conscience or participate in providing abortions. The modern version has dropped allusions to the Green Pantheon and the proscription against abortions, but the oath still stems from a clearly religious understanding of what the gods or someone above and beyond wants from those who handle the lives of others.

Second, the people I have known who have used Planned Parenthood are generally from low income families as nearly 90% of Planned Parenthoods are in urban locations–black and Hispanic areas. So, you are likely correct about a person needing to be in a certain income bracket in order to receive free services and birth control. I will have to look into it more. Still, they hand out condoms like lollipops and then provide abortions when they are not used properly.

Which brings me to my third problem. I’m going to assume your freedom and desire to have sex free from consequences is a big area where we differ. I believe people should be married in order to have sex. As much as I disagree with God on the matter (as I would LOVE to have sex with my girlfriend), He tends to be right and I tend to be wrong. However, you said,

And doctors’ personal choice of religion shouldn’t have anything to do with my sex life, because when they make it about them, it affects me in a negative way. It also hurts people because we as people tend to view doctors on a higher moral plane than the rest of us- so what a doctor says affects us more. A doctor telling me I am a slut and that I don’t deserve birth control because he is a Catholic- that is going to hurt way more than some random internet person.

Why is your sex life more important than a doctor’s deeply held religious beliefs? A doctor will tell you that, though anal sex won’t necessarily kill you, it is not as healthy as vaginal sex. He doesn’t call you a slut if you do it. He doesn’t call you a slut if he won’t give you contraceptives. He doesn’t call you a baby-killer if he won’t give you an abortion. He simply says, “I cannot, in good conscience, do these things without violating my religious beliefs or my understanding of the oath I took upon becoming a doctor.” Basically, what I hear you saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that your right to do whatever you please with your body in whatever manner you please is no concern of the doctor’s and he should cater to you because its his job to give you whatever you want to make sure you can have a sex life free of consequences? Does that about sum it up?

Fourth, I think I see your point on the vegetarianism. While I disagree with you, I see your point and will think on it. But, as you say, doctors must realize the world in which they live in. On the reverse side of that, patients must realize that they need to take responsibility for their actions. A person should not eat themselves silly simply because the option of gastric bypass surgery is available. They need to eat and exercise properly. A person should not have sex with everyone they want just because they know they can get an abortion. (I think we both agree that prostitution is wrong, for religious and societal reasons. I also do not think you are arguing for wanton sexual promiscuity in your own life.) Where does a person draw the line? Can we do whatever we want and just expect a doctor to violate his conscience any time because our “rights” always supersede his or her personal convictions?

Yes, what a doctor does say or prescribe does affect us. However, you seem to be disregarding the biggest equation. YOU. You affect yourself more than any doctor ever will and in bigger ways than any doctor will. I’m not clear on the numbers of doctors making horribly bad decisions (so this may seem bigger than it is for the purposes of our conversation), but I should hope people realize (before they see a doctor) how much their own lifestyles and practices affect them.

By the way, how the heck did we move from Lipscomb’s hiring practices to THIS conversation?

If she’s hospitalized there for other injuries, and can’t get out to another institution to have the pill prescribed, or she doesn’t have access to a friend or relative who can get it for her, she’s SOL if the rape results in a pregnancy.

How in the hell can you imagine that some ER doctor has the right to make a decision like that for an adult woman who has every right legally in this country to make that decision FOR HERSELF?! That is the height of arrogance and it’s illegal and frankly immoral for a doctor or other medical person to impose their religious convictions on someone else when they have taken an oath to give care to anyone who needs it.

So, if a doctor is the ONLY option for a person, that makes violating his conscience less of a problem for you?

Absolutely. Without a question. Doctors take an oath to help people, regardless of their beliefs.

I’m sorry, but there are no eye doctors I know of who use their religious/moral underpinnings to deny someone any type of care.

I was using that as an example of how few options I had. You’ll notice my GP was the only one that my insurace would pay for that was vaguely nearby me.

As a general practice, they refer you out. Whether you have a car or not is not something doctors take into consideration

.

And doesn’t that suck? Not everyone has cars. Not everyone has relatives that can drive them places. Very few places in the US have public transportation. Wouldn’t it suck to have to pay for a cab to go to yet another doctor’s office? Especially if you make minimum wage?

As for “rights” that have to do with women, most are referring to birth control (which is available without a prescription and through Planned Parenthood for FREE)

What the hell are you talking about? Some women qualify for free birth control through Planned Parenthood, but they have to be under a certain income level, and it varies based on location. I don’t know what hormonal birth control is available without a prescription.

You and I both know doctors aren’t arguing over whether or not to prescribe pain pills based solely on religious convictions.

It certainly could. Not all religions believe in modern Western medicine- you think this won’t be an issue at some point?

Doctors who don’t take pain medication themselves for religious/medical reasons generally place those within the realm of deeply held “personal” convictions and will not impress those beliefs on others. It is not a “deal-breaker” so to speak. You have now left the realm of personal convictions that effects you and have entered the realm where other people’s lives are deeply affected by what you are doing and the choices you must make.

As it should be with abortion and birth control. Personally, I would rather suffer through pain than have a baby. A doctor who refuses me birth control is going to affect my life way, way, way more than denying me pain medicine.

As things stand now, because a person lacks a choice because of insurance companies and insurance plans giving them limited options should NOT force a doctor to violate his principles or beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Oh, ok. You totally proved that. Thanks.

You job as a deli slicer and personal choice of vegetarianism ought not be elevated to the level of life and death choices doctors have to make on a daily basis when caring for patients and traversing the medical/moral/spiritual/philosophical world that is HIS job.

And doctors’ personal choice of religion shouldn’t have anything to do with my sex life, because when they make it about them, it affects me in a negetive way. It also hurts people because we as people tend to view doctors on a higher moral plane than the rest of us- so what a doctor says affects us more. A doctor telling me I am a slut and that I don’t deserve birth control because he is a Catholic- that is going to hurt way more than some random internet person.

I could argue that vegetarianism is a matter of life and death to, oh, say, animals, but I will ignore that because my vegetarianism is personal to me. I agree that doctors have a lot of things they have to deal with, but again, if they want to be doctors, they should realize they are going to have to do things that they won’t like- work with the gross and homeless and the morbidly obese and the very sick and those with beliefs that are different from the doctors’- and they have to treat all those people equally.