Morality Clauses

[Hussar]

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:

Friday night the condom broke. But I didn't panic, I thought to myself, with a huge sigh of relief, "Wow, thank goodness it's over the counter now!" and I fell asleep (since there are absolutely NO 24 hour pharmacies within 100 miles of me). Saturday morning I awoke and phoned the pharmacy. I asked them about EC and was told that they won't be stocking it until January 1st, until then it was still by prescription only.
...

"Ok, well ummm....Are you married?" he mumbles the words so low I can barely hear them.

Suddenly I get this image of the poor nurse standing at the hospital reading from a cue card that was given to him by a doctor.

"No." I state plainly. "I am not married. I've been in a relationship for several years and I have three children, I don't want a fourth." I respond tersely.

"Oh, I see." He says and then he hurries on, "Well, see. *I* understand. I want you to know that I understand what you're saying. But see, the problem is that we have 4 doctors here right now but only one of them ever writes EC prescriptions. But see, the thing is that he'll interview you and see if you meet his criteria. Now, I called the pharmacy but I also talked to him and well....*clears throat*....you can come down and try to get it. You know, if you meet his criteria he'll give you a prescription, I mean, there's really no harm in trying." the nurse trails off, his voice falters as I realize what I'm being told.

He continues, almost over eager at this point to distance himself from the hospital, "See, I understand what you're saying and all. I think it's a good thing that it's going over the counter. I just thought I should tell you what he told me. You know, you'll just have to have an interview with him and he'll see if you meet his criteria. He'll only be on duty until 2pm today though and you should ask for him if you decide to come down because he's really your only chance."

I sigh and thank him before hanging up. I know exactly what he was telling me. If I wasn't raped and wasn't married then too damn bad for me.

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

 

[sarah]

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?

 

[dong]

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.

 

[tater03]

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.

 

[Slashmire]

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 :\

 

[dong]

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.

 

[l99999us]

I agree....

I think this is very inappropriate for a medical professional.

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.

 

[Plumley]

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 :\

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

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[capitalist_junkie]

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.

 

[Plumley]

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.

 

[dong]

Sounds reasonable to some...but I highly down that will fly well with said groups: "This is tantamount to advocating moral irresponsibility!"