Doctors refusing treatment for religious reasons--how can this possibly be right?

Question

Article in USA Today this morning:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-02-doctorsrefusals_N.htm

Gay people (in particular) are being denied things like fertility treatments and Viagra--*after* the doctor has accepted their money, of course. Some pharmacists and doctors don't want to provide contraception to single people. Etc., etc. And medical professionals are asking for and getting "conscience clauses", and being sued, too.

Is this right? What do you think about this issue?

Answer 1

I don't think they should accept their money. I don't think they should discriminate either, but if it is private health care business, then of course they should be *able* to discriminate.

Doesn't make it right to single out gays and let in (assumedly?) anyone else that has in anyway not adhered to these healthworker's particular religion.

Will atheist staff refuse to treat Christians or Muslims anytime soon...?....

Nope. And you know it.

*ahem*

Answer 2

now everybody take a deep breath........let it out.........OK. First off the sender needs to check some very basic facts. The posting is riddled with inaccuracies. For instance. The first paragraph is fine. The second paragraph isn't. Doctors do not FILL prescriptions they prescribe. Not all prescriptions are for medications either. Lab testing, physical therapy, etc. are ordered by a doctor's prescription. And for a myriad of reasons they do refuse service on occasion. Now, getting back to the central issue. Is it okay for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription? The answer is yes. Now all of you out there screaming that I should just "DO MY JOB" read on. It's obvious you don't understand my job, so please don't tell me how it should be done. There are many reasons why a pharmacist will not fill a prescription. If we suspect it is a forgery we need to verify it. If the dose is completely out of whack. If the drug/directions etc. are illegible or missing. If there is a nasty interaction with the patient's existing medications. If the patient is unable or unwilling to comply with legal requirements that are specific to the medication (i.e. narcotics, Accutane, etc.) And the list goes on. DId you see anything about moral objections in there? Look, I've been a pharmacist for 21 years. The last time I heard of someone in my state (Utah, which is even more conservative than Idaho) refusing to fill a prescriptionon on moral grounds was NEVER! The last time I refused to fill a prescription for another reason was yesterday.......and almost every day I work for that matter. A fallacious point is made with regards to Plan B (which is what this whole brouhaha is about anyway). What if there is only one pharmacy in town. Since Plan B should be taken within 24 hours, does that mean that this small town pharmacy should be COMPELLED to be open 7 days a week, 365 days a year? And with a pharmacist who has agreed that they will sell Plan B under all circumstances. What if they have the unmitigated gall to close on a holiday.......say Christmas for example. They will denying the RIGHTS of those who wish to have unprotected intercourse on Christmas Eve. My simple point is this. If by some astronomic chance you get a pharmacist that refuses to fill Plan B. Get back in your car and keep going a few miles. You've got 24 hours remember? Surely there is another pharmacy within a 24 hour radius. And by the way, when dirtbags come into my pharmacy on a Friday night wanting to buy a "10 pack of BD 1/2 cc shorts" for their diabetic grandma or some Coricidin Cough/Cold (because it's the ONLY thing that works) I'll be refusing them. Or perhaps they should have a right to attend their rave parties and inject heroin. Right?

Answer 3

The problem is, that is the ONLY clinic under their Insurance plan that they can go to and have their expenses covered. The insurance provider, made the deal with the clinic to have them render services for ALL of it's members. Therefore the Clinic is obligated to provide those services. If there was a problem with the Clinic being able to provide the services for "certain people" then the clinic SHOULD have been up front with the insurance provider, right from the beginning of the contract. Additionally, IF the clinic WAS upfront about it, then the insurance company SHOULD have made that perfectly clear to it's members. As it stands NOW, the Clinic MUST reimburse the insurance company AND the patient for ALL expenses involved up to this point. The Clinic is also obligated to refer the patient to a clinic that will perform the proceedure, forward ALL relevant medical information to that clinic if the patient accepts the new one, AND the insurance company would have to cover any further medical expenses related to the proceedure. Additionally the agrieved parties would be due penalty awards due to inconvenience, mental anguish, and punitive damages. For anything less than that to occur would be a travesty of Justice.

Raji the Green Witch

Answer 4

As a nurse, these ppl are wrong. They are bad medical professionals! We are taught in school that we will care for all! And we take Ethics to discuss this issue. For these healthcare workers to act this way is shameful. They need not practice in the public, maybe become parish professionals and treat those that they are like in opinions. Leave the general public for those of who are mature enough to see that we can't live anothers life! And don't judge.
There is no harm in treating everyone, it is the job they agreed to do.
Me? I do it, God put me here because I can and will. I sometimes leave a patient and say a prayer for them, its how I deal. But, the individual always gets needed care. Or I am not a nurse nor a good person.

Answer 5

I think it is right...

I would understand if they where refusing to help resuscitate or save a life because of someones beliefs, but on the other hand its sorta like the abortion issue... If your a nurse and you feel that killing a baby is wrong then I don't think you should have to participate or be around such an event. I believe there is a line. Theres a difference in discrimination such as: You're Gay you cannot come in here, or You're a single parent so we cannot give you a heart transplant compared to I think killing baby's is wrong and I don't want to have a part in it.

Answer 6

It's a touchy situation, I think. We can't require people to do things that violate their religious beliefs. We also can't allow doctors to harm their patients because of religious beliefs--for example, by withholding emergency contraception.

I think that what's needed is a mandate that if a doctor refuses to perform certain services, s/he must be legally obligated to make it well-known. S/he shouldn't be able to charge patients for refusing to treat them. Also, s/he should be required to provide a list of other doctors (or readily available pharmacies) who will provide the service needed.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that if there's a part of a job you won't be able to do, you just shouldn't do the job at all. We can't mandate that, though. Patients need to be better informed about their options and their doctors, and the government needs to protect our right to medical help when we need it.

Answer 7

I think it's wrong.


When a doctor denies someone treatment for religious reasons, he or she may claim that it's not harming anyone and that another doctor would be just as good, but this is false.

First, that doctor is already taking up moments of the patient's valuable time and resources (lost time visiting, cost of seeing the doctor, cost of getting to the doctor, etc.). On top of that, some of these treatments, especially contraception, could be very time sensitive.

The doctors deserve to lose lawsuits.

Answer 8

Actually, I do think its right. It is your conscience that says gay people should get infertility treatment and viagra, and your conscience that says single people should get contraception (mine too, incidentally). Neither of these is life and death, both are choice. If you deny these people the right to make conscience base choice, which conscience based decisions will you or I be denied?

Also, keep in mind that each of the pharmacists/doctors represent the conscience of entire groups of people. I know I don't want to patronize a pharmacist that dispenses the morning after pill or a doctor who performs abortions---I don't want my money paying for killing a baby....that's part of the free market economy and free market of ideas. We can patronize or not patronize service providers based on whether the services they offer match our own conscience and service requirements.

Answer 9

Ethical, no, legal, possibly. I'm not sure if this may be something that could be considered a civil rights violation or not. They do have the right to refuse non-emergency treatment. Viagra does not violate the hypocratic oath.

Answer 10

i don't think doctors should be denying people treatments because they don't share the same beliefs.

that being said, i'd guess that outright denial is better than just giving people a placebo and sending them on their way. (bet that's happened, too.) at least, the patients can take their business elsewhere if they know where the doctor stands.

there should be a database that helps us pick a doctor with similar beliefs to our own.