This is NOT a debate on abortion! This is a discussion on which person has rights that should be respected, the medical provider or the patient.

Here are the scenarios:

A doctor who is trained and qualified to perform abortions does not want to perform abortions. Perhaps he is Catholic, perhaps he just finds it morally wrong to provide abortions.

He is the only doctor within 500 miles.

A poor woman wants an abortion and she cannot afford to travel, must he provide his patient with what she wants?

This is NOT a debate on abortion! This is a discussion on which person has rights that should be respected, the doctor or the patient.

What about the Target RPh who refused to sell abortion tablets to a patient? The tablets were available, the pharmacy stocked them, but the RPh was Catholic and it was against his personal beliefs to participate in an abortion in any way. This was a Sunday in a small town. The patient did not know where else to go and time is limited.

This is NOT a debate on abortion! This is a discussion on which person has rights that should be respected, the RPh or the patient.

A new mother wants her newborn son to be circumsized. The doctor has no medical cause to cut through healthy tissue to perform this procedure. He refuses, he is the only doctor available for this procedure at the time.

Who has the rights that should be respected? The medical providers or the patients?

I think the patient's rights trump the pharmacist's/doctor's rights, unless there alternative means available to the patient. If there is no other alternative available to the patient, they are denying that patient their right to comprehensive medical care. Wasn't that the basis of the regulation that says that pharmacists do not have to perform duties that conflict with their personal beliefs? I thought they could only refuse care if they were able to provide the patient with an alternative to their services.

Why? What makes the patient's beliefs carry more weight than the medical provider?

Because the patient is the one that can possibly be harmed by the provider's refusal. The doctor (and possibly the pharmacist - I'm not sure) had to take an oath when they became a doctor that states that they would "do no harm". If the patients is requesting an accepted medical practice, the provider had no right to refuse it to them unless they are able to offer them a reasonable alternative. Whether that means giving them back their prescription and telling them where the nearest pharmacy is, or referring them to a doctor that would be willing to perform the procedure in question, they should look out for the best interest of their patients first and foremost.

Acceptable medical practice is the norm for a typical condition. Abortion doesn't cut the mustard. Prenatal care does, abortions are elective unless the mother's life is an issue.

Abortion IS an acceptable medical practice in areas where it is legal, otherwise it would not be taught in medical school or in residency to ob/gyns. It's accepted by the majority of the medical world, therefore it is an acceptable medical practice.

For the RPh the nearest pharmacy might be 100 miles. Maybe it's 2 miles. There is still no medical harm if he does not provide the drugs.

That's why I said in my first post (I think) that the alternative must be reasonable. To expect a patient to travel hundreds of miles is not reasonable.

Doctors swear to uphold that oath. It doesn't matter whether the "harm" is physical or psychological (forcing a woman to experience an unwanted pregnancy, etc.), the patient comes first. There are unpleasant aspects to every job, but when they become doctors, they should realize that they are there for the patients, not for themselves (or at least they should be).

I have another scenario to ask about? A man goes into the hospital with a heart attack that has blown out the bottom of his heart. He has signed Do Not Resusitate papers. His wife is with him and tells the Drs that her husband does not want to be resusitated. Then his daughters from a previous marriage come in and say that they want him resusitated....Who wish is to be honored?

But what is accepable does not mean everyone has to do it. What is acceptable is also a gray area. I may well know how to do a female circumsicion, doesn't mean I'm gonna do it.

And you well know that female circumcision isn't a practice that is accepted by the medical field in the US.

Nobody goes into medicine agreeing to do anything a patient wants. What if your leg has an ugly mole? I want to remove the mole, you want me to amputate. Amputation is an acceptable medical procedure, doesn't mean I'm going to be a part of it. See what I mean? Just because a procedure is an FDA approved procedure doesn't mean I am going to follow through and do it.

Doing an unnecessary amputation isn't akin to an abortion, though. There is no lesser treatment for an unwanted pregnancy. It's either go through with the pregnancy or terminate it. Period. So in effect, an abortion IS an acceptable treatment for an unwanted pregnancy.

I started this topic because I'm realizing that patients demand many things that they just don't have the legal or moral right to demand. They don't earn the license, they don't dictate what medical providers will do. If they don't like it then yes, they are forced to find someone who will.

A patient has the moral and legal right to demand reasonable medical treatment. Like I said earlier, I have no problem with a doctor refusing to treat someone, as long as they give an acceptable and reasonable alternative to the patient. If they don't want to perform an abortion, they have the responsibility to refer their patient to a doctor that will. If a pharmacist does not want to fill a certain prescription, then they have the responsibility to have another pharmacist fill it.

Julz, I am a nurse. The wife and only the wife can say, unless one of the daughters has Healthcare Power of Attorney papers in hand. As long as he is married, the wife...no matter if she is first wife or twenty-first wife has the binding factor that counts.

I have another scenario to ask about? A man goes into the hospital with a heart attack that has blown out the bottom of his heart. He has signed Do Not Resusitate papers. His wife is with him and tells the Drs that her husband does not want to be resusitated. Then his daughters from a previous marriage come in and say that they want him resusitated....Who wish is to be honored?

The legal paperwork first. If he had not signed them, then the wife's wishes should be followed. Unless the man is widowed or divorced, his children have no say.

I was trying to fix a 747 airplane with 400 people on board and my boss wanted me to use the trouble-shooting chart that Boeing provides in their maintenance manual. I wanted to use my own methods for fixing it, because I felt that my rights to free will were being compromised by Boeing and the airlines insistence that I use their methods.

I am a trained medical professional who took an oath to heal. A poor women asks me to perform an abortion. I do not perform abortions as a personal decision unless it is a life or death situation for my patient. My patient is a healthy female who presents with no symptoms of complications with her pregnancy, no signs of adverse effects but is carrying a normal pregnancy.

I refer her to several associates who do perform this procedure.

*this is not 1930's Pikeville, Kentucky*

re: "they are denying that patient their right to comprehensive medical care.'

I don't believe there is a legal 'right to comprehensive medical care'.

I'd have to agree with Jack here. The doctor has a "right" to withhold services from any patient--he's a professional and unless he's under a contract to a government or hospital that says otherwise, he's in charge of his own actions.

Is he behaving ethically? I'd have to say yes, unless he somehow misled the patient into thinking she'd get the desired service if she went to him. He's not "making" her travel hundreds of miles to obtain a desired elective procedure, that's her choice. And of course, in these days of ever-narrowing specialties, it's entirely possible to find gynecologists who don't deliver babies, or obstetricians who won't do abortions. It's not a matter of "rights" in the scenario posed at the outset. The patient doesn't have a "right" to an abortion; it's her job to find a provider that will do it.

I would argue that there is a right to reproduce. Otherwise, the courts would be allowing us to go around and castrate rapists and child molesters willy-nilly. They allow chemical castration, but that's temporary. They don't allow permanent, non-reversible castration of unwilling people. To me, that's a clear indicator that there is a right to reproduce in this country, even if it isn't written in the Bill of Rights. Another example is the pregnancies of minor girls. Once a girl becomes pregnant, her parents have no legal say in the pregnancy. Legally, they can't force an abortion.

I am not necessarily saying that a doctor must perform an abortion on any woman that wants one. I am saying that if a doctor is not willing, they have the responsibility to refer the patient to a doctor that is willing, at least in states where the practice is legal.

I think if the doctor or pharmacist is in private practive, I believe it is their decision on who they want to treat and what procedures they want to perform.

But, if you go to work for a company such as Target, you should provide the services the corporation offers. If your ethics aren't in line with the corporation or organization you work for, then it is time to move on. That is true with any job. I would never work for a company that's mission is not in line with my own values.

But, if you go to work for a company such as Target, you should provide the services the corporation offers. If your ethics aren't in line with the corporation or organization you work for, then it is time to move on. That is true with any job. I would never work for a company that's mission is not in line with my own values.

That's a good point. Employees are informed of their duties when they are hired. If they don't agree with those required duties, they shouldn't take the job. I would say the same about doctors in large practices (where they are employed, but don't own part of the practice). I would assume that their employers informed them of the duties that would be expected of them. If they don't agree with those duties, they should find another practice that won't require them to perform those duties.

I am not necessarily saying that a doctor must perform an abortion on any woman that wants one. I am saying that if a doctor is not willing, they have the responsibility to refer the patient to a doctor that is willing, at least in states where the practice is legal.

I absolutely agree with this, but think it goes toward medical ethics than the "rights" of the provider or the patient. Any doctor who was unwilling to help a patient in need, even if it's just with a referral, is not living up to the medical code of ethics.