The Physician Conscience bill is in draft

[IchabodPlain]

So what you're saying is that one can sink a quarter of a million dollars into their education and training to become a doctor, then the year after they graduate, if a new procedure or medication becomes available with which they have objections about performing, they're just supposed to toss it all out the window?

I makes no difference what I say, their ethics are just that. Doctors (and pharmacists for that matter) take an oath which is conditional upon joining the profession.

You must have missed where moral and religious objections can be made. The problem in this instance is that there is no clear moral or religious objection to be made about the morning after pill. It isn't an abortion; there is no embryo, no fertilized egg, no human life.

Or perhaps you expect doctors to know what treatments shall ever be invented?

No.

 

[RadioactiveMan]

I makes no difference what I say, their ethics are just that. Doctors (and pharmacists for that matter) take an oath which is conditional upon joining the profession.

First of all, I doubt such an oath is legally binding, and second, please point out the portions of this oath which compel pharmacists and/or physicians to perform work which is objectionable to them.

You must have missed where moral and religious objections can be made. The problem in this instance is that there is no clear moral or religious objection to be made about the morning after pill. It isn't an abortion; there is no embryo, no fertilized egg, no human life.

The fact that you see no possible objection to this drug is by no means conclusive proof that there can be no person who does.

Actually, the fact that there are people who do object to filling such prescriptions on moral grounds pretty much proves you wrong.

 

[Travis]

Does anyone know of any doctors who have refused to give out morning after pills? If so for what possible reason?

 

[IchabodPlain]

First of all, I doubt such an oath is legally binding, and second, please point out the portions of this oath which compel pharmacists and/or physicians to perform work which is objectionable to them.

Already provided: Post #18.

Also, you're flatly wrong about the enforcement which is handled by the state licensing board. For instance, if you wanted to report a violation in Florida, this lists different routes for contact.

Professional ethics are serious as hell in practicing medicine, for which punishment goes up and includes losing your license to practice medicine in that state, and loss of reputation.

Did you ever stop to think why this bill is being introduced? It is a way to circumvent the Code of Ethics and the punishments that go with it. It is a classic example of government intruding into private matters. Strange that as a conservative you would subscribe to that, but hey, it seems everyone has their own exceptions.

The fact that you see no possible objection to this drug is by no means conclusive proof that there can be no person who does.

Actually, the fact that there are people who do object to filling such prescriptions on moral grounds pretty much proves you wrong.

The issue is staking out a moral argument, not merely asserting that there is a moral argument, and leaving it at that. Would you care to try? You see, there must be a basis from which to build such moral conclusions.

Since you think that there is (or at least could be) a compelling moral consideration, why do you think this bill is needed? It seems if that were the case, this law would, again, be unnecessary.

 

[slingblade]

Hi

Every town that has a McDonalds has a Planned Parenthood Center.

With all the physicians and pretty-darned-near physicians (prescribing N.P.s and such) who are ready, willing, and eager to dispense morning-after pills, I don't see how this will have any effect whatsoever.

Where I live, we have two hospitals. The gigantic one, where the helicopters land and which had to have a multi-story parking garage recently added, is Catholic. The little tiny one isn't, and isn't sponsored by Catholic dollars, so it offers few charitable services.

The clinic in town that serves all the lower-class, including the homeless, and me for that matter, is run by the same Catholic hospital.

You can't get an abortion, morning-after, or any birth control in either the Catholic hospital or clinic. I admit I'm uncertain about abortions without which the mother's life may be at stake, but I know an optional abortion is right out. This already means the poor in my town have a much harder time getting access to these things.

It would make a big difference here to the people who already have to go to "someone else" to get these medical services. A lot more of the "someone elses" could opt out, limiting the poor's access even more. We don't have a lot of choices. This would take some of the few we do have away.

Respectfully, I hope you re-examine the issue. It could affect the poor in a big way, I think.

 

[moopet]

Hang on a second. Back up. Isn't the doctor refusing treatment an ideological issue?

I think it's interesting to contrast the discussion here and over on Dawkins ( http://richarddawkins.net/article,3137,n,n ) I wonder if the overall tone of the thread is determined by the first few responses? Off-topic, I know, but interesting

I appreciate most of the points people are making, but unless the doctor in question is set up in some mickey mouse hospital with rules set in sponge, where he can do what he likes and the governing body will support him, I think this is pretty straightforward. You could say that it's a slippery slope argument to start talking about life-threatening non-treatments, but even so, even if it's another argument altogether, it's still wacko jacko. Why cut someone slack for having a religious belief? If he was a bus driver, and his religious belief told him he should stop the bus, kick everyone off and pray for 20 minutes and then let people back on, would that sound sensible? If the doctor refused to treat women? If *all* the doctors converted to $faith and refused to treat women?

Nutshell: practice medicine or GTFO.