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 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.

I agree. When I say "interfering with rights", I am referring to those providers that actively try to keep a person from filling a prescription or having a certain procedure done. You know, those cases where a pharmacist refuses to return a prescription to the patient, or a doctor tells the patient lies about what an abortion does to scare them away from it. To me, that is not only unethical, but is interfering with a patient's rights to medical care.

This is what I said in post #2.

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.

Does it conflict with what I said in post #22? Not necessarily. To me, actively keeping a patient from receiving certain medical care includes refusing to perform a certain duty if there is no other option available to the patient. To me, that includes refusing to perform an abortion and refusing to refer a patient to another physician who would be willing to perform it. In my experience, most ob/gyns require a referral before they will see you. If other physicians require a referral, and the physician refusing treatment alse refuses to give that referral, they are violating both ethical rules and, IMO, the rights of the patient. I guess it is a matter of what I consider to be a responsible, moral human being.

I am trying to state what I personally believe, so I'm sorry if you think it is contradictory. Let me see if I can simplify it. If conditions were ideal, and there is a doctor on every corner, and those doctors took patients without referrals, I have no problem with a certain doctor refusing to treat a patient, because there are acceptable alternative options. To me, that violates no one's rights. If conditions were different, say he was the only doctor within several hundred miles that was accepting patients, or the other doctors refuse to see patients without a referral from their previous doctor, etc., and the doctor refused to give that referral, then yes, I think that violates the patients rights to medical care of their choice. At that point, there are no acceptable alternative options. By acceptable alternative, I mean acceptable to the patient. To a patient that wants an abortion, there is no acceptable alternative. The options are either pregnancy or abortion.

Let me ask about this scenario: A person that looks very poor or homeless goes to a clinic and is diagnosed with a certain condition. Is their physician obligated to present all the available treatments to that person, or just the ones that the physician thinks that person can afford or that the physician agrees with? Would the physician's failure to inform the patient about all the available treatments violate that patient's rights? Does the physican have the right to not tell the patient about treatments that have promising results but that he doesn't think are morally correct? (For example, if the patient needs a heart transplant, would it be right for a Jewish physician to not inform them of the possibility of a transplant from a pig?)

I just wanted to point out that there is a Patients' Bill of Rights.

Patients’ Bill of Rights

I. Information Disclosure

You have the right to receive accurate and easily understood information about your health plan, health care professionals, and health care facilities. If you speak another language, have a physical or mental disability, or just don’t understand something, assistance will be provided so you can make informed health care decisions.

II. Choice of Providers and Plans

You have the right to a choice of health care providers that is sufficient to provide you with access to appropriate high-quality health care.

III. Access to Emergency Services

If you have sever pain, an injury, or sudden illness that convinces you that your health is in serious jeopardy, you have the right to receive screening and stabilization emergency services whenever and wherever needed, without prior authorization or financial penalty.

IV. Participation in Treatment Decisions

You have the right to know all your treatment options and to participate in decisions about your care. Parents, guardians, family members, or other individuals that you designate can represent you if you cannot make your own decisions.

V. Respect and Nondiscrimination

You have a right to considerate, respectful and nondiscriminatory care from your doctors, health plan representatives, and other health care providers.

VI. Confidentiality of Health Information

You have the right to talk in confidence with health care providers and to have your health care information protected. You also have the right to review and copy your own medical record and request that your physician amend your record if it is not accurate, relevant, or complete.

VII. Complaints and Appeals

You have the right to a fair, fast, and objective review of any compliant you have against your health plan, doctors, hospitals or other health care personnel. This includes complaints about waiting times, operating hours, the conduct of health care personnel, and the adequacy of health care facilities.

I would imagine that refusing to refer a patient to a physician because you don't agree with the treatment that they would like to receive would violate a person's right to have their choice of providers.

I would think that a doctor refusing to perform either of the following would violate their patients' rights:

• 
  
• refusing to give referrals to their choice of physician
  
• refusing to tell patients about possible treatment options

Doctors pick and choose what services to provide, and which patients to treat, all the time. It is neither unethical nor illegal.

Most organ transplant centers refuse to transplant smokers or drinkers. They also have a priority list and if you lose your insurance before you get a new organ, they kick you off the list - which means you will DIE. Too bad...so sad.

Band doctors, as someone else pointed out, will rarely fill a patient banded elsewhere. OB/GYN docs will generally not accept patients who are more than five months pregnant. My PCP does not treat children, nor will he accept new Medicare patients. He also discriminates against smokers, as he will give drug samples to non-smokers only. So far, no one has sued him.

A physician is morally obligated to provide care only in case of an emergency - meaning a situation that is life-threatening. Apart from that, he can tell you to go suck a lemon.

Doctors pick and choose what services to provide, and which patients to treat, all the time. It is neither unethical nor illegal.

Most organ transplant centers refuse to transplant smokers or drinkers. They also have a priority list and if you lose your insurance before you get a new organ, they kick you off the list - which means you will DIE. Too bad...so sad.

Band doctors, as someone else pointed out, will rarely fill a patient banded elsewhere. OB/GYN docs will generally not accept patients who are more than five months pregnant. My PCP does not treat children, nor will he accept new Medicare patients. He also discriminates against smokers, as he will give drug samples to non-smokers only. So far, no one has sued him.

A physician is morally obligated to provide care only in case of an emergency - meaning a situation that is life-threatening. Apart from that, he can tell you to go suck a lemon.

All of the examples you gave are medically related reasons for refusal. The issue that is most glaring is the one where a medical professional elects not to follow the rules of the company he is working for and does it for non-medical reasons.

Let me ask about this scenario: A person that looks very poor or homeless goes to a clinic and is diagnosed with a certain condition. Is their physician obligated to present all the available treatments to that person, or just the ones that the physician thinks that person can afford or that the physician agrees with? Would the physician's failure to inform the patient about all the available treatments violate that patient's rights? Does the physican have the right to not tell the patient about treatments that have promising results but that he doesn't think are morally correct? (For example, if the patient needs a heart transplant, would it be right for a Jewish physician to not inform them of the possibility of a transplant from a pig?)

Pausing to appreciate your youth. 23 years. Okay, I get the cellestial questions and good for you for thinking way outside the box.

I hear you about the pig problem but I don't think a physician could possibly know all of the religious affiliations of his patients unless they specified "no pork" on their charts.

Grumpy is very much right about his suck a lemon post.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone who needed healthcare received it?

How awesome to see few conflicts between insurance and doctor/patients.

In reality, the person who was diagnosed was probably done so by receiving results from initial tests by a PCP who would then refer out to a specialist. A specialist should be stating all available options to the patient.

I think what you would find interesting to read is the HIPPA guidelines. Google: HIPPA

All of the examples you gave are medically related reasons for refusal. The issue that is most glaring is the one where a medical professional elects not to follow the rules of the company he is working for and does it for non-medical reasons.

No, they are not all "medically related". When an organ transplant program drops you from the list because you have no insurance, that's about money.

Band doctors who exclude patients banded in Mexico, but will accept patients banded by another US doctor - not medically related.

My own PCP who chooses not to treat anyone under 18 or over 65 is exercising his rights as a businessman, but his decision isn't medically related.

Grumpy is very much right about his suck a lemon post.

Grumpy? I'm anything but grumpy.

No, they are not all "medically related". When an organ transplant program drops you from the list because you have no insurance, that's about money.

Band doctors who exclude patients banded in Mexico, but will accept patients banded by another US doctor - not medically related.

My own PCP who chooses not to treat anyone under 18 or over 65 is exercising his rights as a businessman, but his decision isn't medically related.

The first one you are correct, but in your statement you had two things and I meant one of them.

You said nothing about Mexico vs USA in your original statement.

The PCP not treating people below 18 or above 65 might very well be medically related. Under 18's react different to treatment than adults (big study out last week on drugs not being tested on children) and people over 65 are loaded with medical problems. I said might.

BUT, when the reason has nothing to do with medicine, like a doctor saying I will not treat you because you are a Republican or an Hispanic or because I don't believe in birth control, even though I work for a firm that does believe in birth control and stocks birth control pills, then that is over the line.

Grumpy? I'm anything but grumpy.

Probably talking about me.:help:

I am both pro-choice and pro same sex marriage. Both of these are legal rights in my country, nevertheless, problems can arise in small towns and rural areas. Women have found that they were denied access to the morning after pill by the only pharmacist in their small towns and they have found that they have had to not only make medical arrangements but travel to distant cities in order to have their abortions.

Recently a same sex couple was denied a civil marriage by the local civil servant deputised to carry out this function in a small prairie town because this offended his sense of morality. I am inclined to view these issues as being somewhat akin in so far that these individuals find themselves unable to follow through with the laws of the land by virtue of their personal sense of ethics.

None of these people were punished under Canadian law although these particular instances were mentioned in the media. The gay couple chose to sue the individual who found that he couldn't marry them. A couple of the doctors who disagreed with the local hospital's refusal to permit abortions quit practising medicine in that small town. As it happens the only local hospital is a Catholic one and as for the loss of these two doctors, well, this was a real loss to the residents of this small town; it's difficult to attract doctors to work in the boonies. And then there is the case of the pharmacist who refuses to hand out the morning after pill....

My knee jerk response is to view this kind of morality as being inflexible and punitive. When it comes to the right to choose, I figure that the rights of the individual who is already here trump that of an existance which is still largely theoretical. I also figure that to be anti-choice is kind of sexist; it is, afterall, the woman who pays the price. And I believe that same sex couples must have the right to civil marriage. But these are my beliefs. I cannot put myself in the shoes of the opposition. I really don't know how to view these problems. Certainly these are not problems which are going to afflict city folk.

Good questions! Here's my 2 cents worth -

Scenario 1 - The doctor has the right to refuse to perform an elective procedure, whether the patient wants an abortion or a tummy tuck.

Scenario 2 - Tough one... if it were a privately owned pharmacy, I'd say that the pharmacist has the right to deny filling the prescription. However, since it was a major corporation, it would go to their policies. It's my thought that if they allow that prescription to be stocked in their pharmacy, the pharmacist has a duty to fill it.

Scenario 3 - Once again, the doctor has the right to refuse to perform an elective procedure.

My personal feelings? I'm pro-choice and do not believe in circumcising boys (I have two sons, uncircumcised, that have never had any problems with this).

Great way to start some debating! :clap2:

The progressive state of South Carolina is in the process of passing another "common sense" law to "help mothers" make their choice about whether or not to have an abortion.

The new law (when passed) will require a pregnant woman who wants to have an abortion to have an ultra-sound so that she can see what she is terminating

The reasoning is, "once they see that they are killing a baby with arms, legs, beating heart, etc., they will change their minds". It is already bad enough that in states like South Carolina, women often have to travel quite a distance to find a facility that will perform an abortion. I can just imagine a poor woman who is aborting the fetus because she can not afford to support a child, having the added expense of having to travel to a distant city and then being told that she also has to pay for an ultra-sound before and besides the expense of the abortion, and then having to pay for a hotel room before making the journey home.

Getting back to the theme of this thread, I wonder what would happen if the Medical professional does not believe in torturing a woman with the guilt that an ultra-sound might produce and the medical professional decides either not to perform the "test" or tells the woman that she can look the other way during the ultra-sound. With the shoe on the other foot, I wonder if the same people who defended the Medical professionals' right to refuse treatment will still defend them or will they change their tune?

by the logic I am reading, then a doctor has a RIGHT to perfom ANY procedure he wishes. Including abortions and sex-changes (two common operations many fanatics want to ban) Thanks for the new argument guys