Comments on: Federal Rule Lets Doctors Deny Medical Care Based on Religious Concerns

By: LOOKING4ANSWER

LOOKING4ANSWER — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:31:26 +0000

I don’t understand this article, because of all the comments. So may someone explain something to me. Does this mean that the physician can actually refuse service based on his/her beliefs/religion?

By: LJ

LJ — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:20:16 +0000

Many people cannot simply choose to visit another doctor because our HMO system limits patient choices. Thinking about the ramifications of this regarding issues other than abortion–like teen access to birth control, single person or same-sex couple access to reproductive health services, people who have HIV, referrals for mental health conditions, reconstructive or plastic surgeries, etc.–can be scary, considering how many of us are VERY limited in our access to multiple providers and how we rely on our doctors as “gatekeepers” to almost all of our healthcare services.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:28:28 +0000

Eric, What Hippocratic Oath? They threw out the original Greek oath long ago. And if the institution they obtain their medical license from has one, it is not mandatory. Many new doctors don’t take an oath. or in the case of my doctor, don’t remember taking an oath. Most oaths now state they can either take a life or save it. What I find interesting, is many people still believe that doctors are required to take such an oath as the “original” Hippocratic Oath which vows to honor the health and life of the patient, not the health care system.

By: Law Student

Law Student — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:05:04 +0000

There have been many comments concerning doctors that push their religious beliefs on others by refusing certain medical care. Unfortunately, those arguments don’t really work. How many people do you know have changed their own beliefs based on what their doctor told them? Rather, this is an issue of the right to believe and practice one’s beliefs which has always been a hallmark of our constitution.

More accurately, the issue is whether the potential limitations on medical choice outweigh the ability for doctors to refuse to perform something contrary to their deeply held beliefs. Luckily we don’t have to suffer the consequences of state health care so we have many options competing for our “business.” If a certain doctor won’t perform an abortion then find someone who will. If a doctor chooses to perform all acceptable treatments, then they get to reap the benefit of being a more marketable doctor. The key is that they have the choice to be the doctor they want to be. Certainly we can think of situations where some patients may have fewer choices like the small town resident, or military personnel at sea, but those issues can be dealt with individually without removing personal rights for doctors across the board.

In our society people that don’t receive important medical care do so because of lack of insurance or some financial restraint, not because we don’t have enough doctors out there. Anyone evaluating this new rule should take a step back from their own political agenda and realize this law only protects rights our constitution aims to protect, and it really doesn’t “take rights away” from anybody.

By: Bob Loblaw

Bob Loblaw — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:38:14 +0000

First of all, doctors have refused to treat in ways or give abortions before, this law just means they cannot be punished for it, so basically it is giving them something to fall back on when they’re being obnoxious and uncaring.
If a patient wants an abortion, they should have one, obviously the law cannot decide whether they are in need of one but isn’t that up to them, not the lawmakers or the doctors? Some people would be better off with abortions. Some people should get abortions because they won’t be able to give a child a good fair life and this is just better. I am completely unabashedly pro-choice.

On another note this law means that a pharmacist can not give out birth control if they just don’t think the person should take it. They could say ANYTHING is against their religion and not give it out and so now they cannot be punished for withholding any treatment or medicine.
This law is stupid and is going to be harmful.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:06:48 +0000

Larian,

I agree with you!

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:05:17 +0000

Elmer,

while you make good points, your analogy is pretty bad. Firing a vegan because he/she refuses to eat meat doesn’t apply here. Firing a vegan because he/she refuses to serve meat is a more appropriate analogy – and I could easily see that as grounds for dismissal.

By: liz mann

liz mann — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:09:41 +0000

Does this rule mean that a vegan or buddhist can refuse to administer heparin or serve hospital meals that contain meat? It also seems that the only way this law can be constitutional is if we apply it to all professions.

By: Larian LeQuella

Larian LeQuella — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:57:37 +0000

If god has a problem with the way we live our lives, have him tell us. I’d kindly ask the rest of you to STFU!

By: Elmer

Elmer — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:53:36 +0000

Many of you here are clearly bias over this topic. In fact this is indicated by the fact the title is called “Medical care” instead of controversial medical dilemmas. Let’s get something straight here; abortion, birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research or assisted suicide ARE NOT medical care that can harm the patient if not performed. These are duties that can be done by other doctors who are willing to do this type of profession.

These so called “responsibility” is not even a requirement for the oath the doctors’ take. The doctors here have the duty to save lives. The topics above are not medical care that will/can not harm the patient. Thus, it is not a requirement for them to fulfill this duty. Honestly, its controversial moral grey areas at best, its not even a human right! Since when did do we have the right to say that people have no option of doing their duties when its clearly not necessary to do so?

It does remove individual rights, heck our individual rights have been violated since the Patriot act. I’m sorry but when did birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research or assisted suicide become a duty to the doctors and a human right? Abortion I can understand, I’m a pro choice advocate, but to tell the doctor that birth control, stem cell research or assisted suicide is part of his/her duties is ridiculous.

And no, this bill does not discriminate against people and overall does not affect the current situation of doctors. Honestly, telling a person they should quit their job because they refuse something that is morally grey is the equivalent of me firing a person because he/she is vegan working in fast food restaurant because she/he refuses to eat the meat.

By: William

William — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:55:07 +0000

Ok then it should work both ways a doctor should be able to refuse to treat a fundie and refer them to a witch doctor or thier pastor to pray for a cure. They certainly don’t believe in evolution and all the medicine that comes from it so we should say this medicine is a lie and you should go to your healing hands creationism science for your medicine.

By: Zach

Zach — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:10:15 +0000

So could seventh day adventists refuse to give transfusions? Seems like I really would be justified in not hiring a doctor if they weren’t willing to do that.

By: Angel O' Death

Angel O' Death — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:13:12 +0000

This is really good news. My religion forbids me to provide medical attention of any kind to the elderly, African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, Muslims, Gays, fat people and pretty much anyone I don’t like! I now have a legal mandate, muwahahahahaha!

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:54:12 +0000

If phamacists choose to supply certain medications, while others are not required to, then those pharmacists can be threatened for choosing to supply it. By requiring ALL to supply it, it prevents these kinds of actions.

By: Angela

Angela — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:12:23 +0000

My problem with this law is in regards to smaller towns. If you live in a big city, odds are good that you can find a qualified health care provider to complete whatever procedure you wish. But what about those who live in small towns and only a few doctors? And what if those doctors refuse to do abortions, etc? And what if you can’t afford to drive possible many hours/ miles to the next closest doctor who will perform the procedure? Or if you’re a younger person who is technically capable of making your own medical decisions without informing/ asking your parents and you have no way to make it to the next closest location? There isn’t always another doctor/ pharmacy that is accessible to everyone in the US, so I believe that this will disproportionally affect lower income, rural and younger individuals by limiting their options in regard to their health care. And that is totally unacceptable!