1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Morality Clauses

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Hussar, Sep 26, 2006.

  1. Hussar

    Hussar New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting blog post by a mother of three who wanted to get emergency contraception to prevent a fourth. Nice to know that public services feel that they should be enforcing morality on those they are meant to serve.

    The whole article is Here

    Here's the gist:

    Should public servants be allowed to dictate morality for legal proceedures?
     
  2. sarah

    sarah New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How is a doctor a public servant though? Doctors take an oath to do what they think is right, and (not that I agree with it, but) while the drug is still prescription, it is the doctor’s decision to make.
    The term public servant denotes a position such as police, fire/rescue, Government etc.
    I can see how the debate can and should be made in regards to the government that decides to dictates what medications should need prescriptions and which should not, but not the doctors...
    To whom were you referring?
     
  3. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh, Sarah, that's actually not consistent with current guidelines for doctor's ethics.

    That said, this is shocking. Under no circumstances should a doctor be enforcing their moral perspectives in their practice- this is unprofessional and disrespectful. Doctors aren't public servants, and we're under no obligation to engage in treatment of a patient...but while we are serving the public there are professional guidelines that we should be fairly obliged to adhere to. Implementation of such "criteria" is demeaning and since it is already taking place in a consult, is a travesty of clinical practice. This said, if any doctor were to agree to see somebody about EC, they have to give the said EC unless there is a specific medical reason why it should not be prescribed.
     
  4. tater03

    tater03 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I could understand if there was a medically sound reason not to give this pill to her, but if not then I don't think it is his position to decide if it's morally needed or not. This is just ridiculous.
     
  5. Slashmire

    Slashmire New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm interesting, I haven't seen or heard similar stories; I wonder if this is a bigger issue, or if she was just the wrong person at the wrong time at the wrong place :\
     
  6. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is surely a bigger issue. Much much bigger issue given the broad relevance of the original post to medical practice.

    Another example: http://www.narth.com/

    I remember this made my blood boil. These people are going to be my what...colleagues!? Ugh.
     
  7. l99999us

    l99999us New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree....

    I think this is very inappropriate for a medical professional.

     
  8. Plumley

    Plumley New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It happens on a reasonably frequent basis. Catholic hospitals and doctors often refuse to deal with abortion or bith control. Pharmacists have refused to dispense the morning after pill for religious reasons. Here's a quote from a story and the link is below:

    Judge Jeanne Scott ruled that seven pharmacists who refused to offer the so-called "morning-after pill" have a legitimate argument that the rule violates their religious freedom.

    http://cbs2chicago.com/health/local_story_251111938.html
     
  9. Hussar

    Hussar New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Heh, Canadian bias coming out. Since we have no private health care, that makes doctors public servants. My bad.

    OTOH, it's a pretty rare hospital that doesn't receive public money. I would have trouble believing that none of the hospitals she called received any public funding. If you suck from the govey teat, you get to play by govey rules, which means no ramming your views down other people's throats.

    Up in Canada, there have been similar cases where doctors have refused to perform treatments because of religious issues. Out west (I don't have a linkie handy) there is a Catholic hospital serving small communities, that has started to refuse to perform tubal ligation forcing residents to travel about 150 km to get it done.
     
  10. capitalist_junkie

    capitalist_junkie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's really horrible. I can understand (although I don't approve) the practice in a privatized health system, but when health care is made public, the doctor has no right to enforce morality. Unless you're living under a theocracy. Last time I checked, Canada was not a theocracy.
     
  11. Plumley

    Plumley New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems to me the reasonable thing to do would be to require that the treatment - be it a pill or a procedure - be made readily available by the provider who didn't want to dispense it. So if some docs, hospitals, pharmacists didn't want to provide it, they would be responsible for seeing that the patient got it somewhere else. If they had convictions that prevented them from doing it, fine, but they couldn't just wash their hands of the patient.
     
  12. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds reasonable to some...but I highly down that will fly well with said groups: "This is tantamount to advocating moral irresponsibility!" :p
     
Loading...

Share This Page