Doctors refusing to care for patients based on "values"

[dajoki]

Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care
New laws shore up providers’ right to refuse treatment based on values

By Sabrina Rubin Erdely
Updated: 2 hours, 12 minutes ago
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19190916/

Lori Boyer couldn't stop trembling as she sat on the examining table, hugging her hospital gown around her. Her mind was reeling. She'd been raped hours earlier by a man she knew — a man who had assured Boyer, 35, that he only wanted to hang out at his place and talk. Instead, he had thrown her onto his bed and assaulted her. "I'm done with you," he'd tonelessly told her afterward. Boyer had grabbed her clothes and dashed for her car in the freezing predawn darkness. Yet she'd had the clarity to drive straight to the nearest emergency room — Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania — to ask for a rape kit and talk to a sexual assault counselor. Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam. Now, as Boyer watched Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart, she thought of something the rape counselor had mentioned earlier.

"I'll need the morning-after pill," she told him.

Dr. Gish looked up. He was a trim, middle-aged man with graying hair and, Boyer thought, an aloof manner. "No," Boyer says he replied abruptly. "I can't do that." He turned back to his writing.

Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn't willing to write an EC prescription, she'd be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. "It's against my religion," he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)

Boyer left the emergency room empty-handed. "I was so vulnerable," she says. "I felt victimized all over again. First the rape, and then the doctor making me feel powerless." Later that day, her rape counselor found Boyer a physician who would prescribe her EC. But Boyer remained haunted by the ER doctor's refusal — so profoundly, she hasn't been to see a gynecologist in the two and a half years since. "I haven't gotten the nerve up to go, for fear of being judged again," she says.

<<snip>>

That's exactly what's happening in medical offices and hospitals around the country: Catholic and conservative Christian health care providers are denying women a range of standard, legal medical care. Planned Parenthood M.D.s report patients coming to them because other gynecologists would not dole out birth control prescriptions or abortion referrals. Infertility clinics have turned away lesbians and unmarried women; anesthesiologists and obstetricians are refusing to do sterilizations; Catholic hospitals have delayed ending doomed pregnancies because abortions are only allowed to save the life of the mother. In a survey published this year in The New England Journal of Medicine, 63 percent of doctors said it is acceptable to tell patients they have moral objections to treatments, and 18 percent felt no obligation to refer patients elsewhere. And in a recent SELF.com poll, nearly 1 in 20 respondents said their doctors had refused to treat them for moral, ethical or religious reasons. "It's obscene," says Jamie D. Brooks, a former staff attorney for the National Health Law Program who continues to work on projects with the Los Angeles advocacy group. "Doctors swear an oath to serve their patients. But instead, they are allowing their religious beliefs to compromise patient care. And too often, the victims of this practice are women."

[valerief]

1. We need more freakin' Indian doctors in this country. These holy roller nuts

are making people suffer needlessly.

[Deja Q]

21. It's too costly to have them here. People fly to India instead.

[hobbit709]

2. They should yank their licenses

If they won't treat the patient, then they don't need their MD license.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

10. this needs to be the law, unfortunatley this type of incident is relatively common n/t

[tbyg52]

36. It seems to me that it must already be in the law somewhere

that you cannot refuse appropriate treatment. Anybody happen to have any references?

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

56. Can you point me to 5 cases where people have had their licenses yanked for this?

I would be amazed.

[tbyg52]

57. No, I can't,

because I haven't looked into it to that depth.

I just expressed the opinion that there might already be a law regarding this out there somewhere, and asked if anyone had any further knowledge.

I certainly didn't say this (possible) law was *applied*--doesn't seem to be, if it is in fact there.

I just asked if anyone knew what the existing laws were regarding this, and expressed a speculation that there might be some out there.

[OwnedByFerrets]

13. I agree with you........this makes me so

fucking mad!!!!!!!!!!! How long before they start refusing care if you are a democrat???

[MadMaddie]

24. There you go....this is how it starts.....

And then only the rich can get the choice of treatment...

And then once medical treatement is denied because of religious preference....
Housing will denied due to sexual orientation, race, weight, looks....

You see it's not that hard to go to the next step once the first is taken...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. They should yank something else of theirs

:mad:

[KittyWampus]

48. No, they should not be allowed to work in public hospitals. Let them work in Fundie-only offices

[SharonAnn]

51. It may have been a "Christian" or "Catholic" hospital. Sometimes they're the only ER in town.

[MADem]

3. Ah, the hypocritic oath!! We need some new law, I'm guessing.

If you can't do what doctors do, you need to find another line of work. That should be the law. Enough of this "personal values" bullshit. These are the requirements of the job, if you can't manage it, then go work at Starbucks. Or do autopsies. Or give out flu shots all day. But no patients with real needs for YOU!!!

Hey, my personal values say that some asshole doctor who treated a poor woman that way should be dragged into the parking lot and beaten to within an inch of his life, and left, sobbing and bloodied, on the macadam....WHAT, you say? MY personal beliefs aren't going to be honored in this instance??? Why, how very unfair!!! Those are MY VALUES...I must stomp my foot and protest!!

[dajoki]

15. You and I have the same values n/t

[ringtailtooter]

4. In 1993 Baptist Hospital in Nashville refused to treat a friend when they found out he was gay.

[ThomCat]

9. That hospital should have been closed down.

I'm sure they receive federal funding, so they shouldn't be able to turn anybody away for any reason. x(

I hope he sued.

[melody]

5. I know so many women who've been traumatized by gynecologists

I've had nasty put-downs made to me by a gynecologist that put me off going to one
for years. This is just the latest wrinkle. This isn't just fundamentalism -- it's
misogynism and it's common in gynecology (not to mention medicine of all types).

[maggiegault]

64. I was questioned...extensively...by both male and female medical personnel

...last year when I wanted to get my tubal ligation.

It was as if they could not and would not wrap their heads around the notion that a 35-year-old woman without children would want to have her tubes tied.

[Warpy]

6. Baby besotted born agains going into OB-Gyn

have always been a problem, I think, along with the type of men who have an urge to control the birth process. There are fine and compassionate people who go into the specialty, but if you've ever met the bornagains or the controllers in an examination room, the whole thing will give you the willies for the rest of your life.

Anyone who enters a women's health specialty and then refuses to perform any of the parts of that specialty needs his license in that specialty revoked. Let him be a GP, do some advanced study and be a dermatologist. Just get him the hell away from WOMEN.

Men's health is never under this sort of attack. There are no urologists out there who will provide all services except prescribing Viagra, curing STDs, and referring the impotent for penile implant insertion. They just don't exist.

It's only WOMEN who have to face the possibility that only PART of their healthcare needs will be met by a judgmental physician who has no business in that specialty.

[ThomCat]

12. Fundy nuts only seem to judge women, not men

so that certainly isn't a surprise.

It's one more place where there is a clear double standard used as a bludgeon against women.

[SharonAnn]

52. Actually, Catholic Urologists won't perform vasectomies.

[murielm99]

65. We had an experience with that.

The Catholic urologist who examined my husband told him that he did not PERSONALLY perform the procedure. His partner performed the procedure.

The doctor was polite and personable. He made sure the referral to his partner was immediate. This guy knew how to keep his own values without shoving them down his patients' throats. I respected that.

My husband got his vasectomy when our youngest was about 4 weeks old.

[kestrel91316]

7. Notice how there is no equivalent complaint among men.

This is misogyny, pure and simple.

Yank their licenses.

He is a Mennonite, but being an emergency room physician, working in a hospital ER rather than in his own medical office, he loses the right to inflict his religious beliefs on others. The people who see him do not have the opportunity to pick and choose.

SHAME on him.

I found his home address and phone number online but, being a BETTER CHRISTIAN THAN HIM, I won't say where or post them here.

[China_cat]

8. It isn't just ob-gyn doctors

We have at least one right here in Charleston who, when confronted with a man having chest pains or shortness of breath, immediately sends him to the hospital for tests.

A woman with cardiac symptoms gets told to go home and pray.

[kimmylavin]

32. If her complaint is taken seriously at all.

In this day and age, there are still plenty of doctors who will chalk things up to "feminine hysteria".

[dajoki]

17. No human being deserves...

to be treated like that. If he did that to my wife or daughters his license wouldn't need to be suspended. I would be in prison.

[closeupready]

11. That oath doesn't mean anything anymore.

(I'm told.)

[damntexdem]

14. He should lose his license to practice medicine, ...

and still be liable to a tort claim.

If he doesn't want to prescribe it himself, he should have to refer. If the hospital won't allow in a doctor who will prescribe, then the hospital should be liable.

[iamahaingttta]

16. Let's think about this for a second...

On the one hand, I totally agree that a patient should be able to get the services that they want and need. I personally believe that any woman who is raped, should have access to the morning after pill, if she wants it. I believe that any woman should have the right to choose abortion, if that's what she wants.

However...

Good Samaritan IS a religious hospital! It's a private facility that was started by a church. I think that they ALSO have a right to perform, or not perform services that they feel are against their moral judgement! Mind you, I'm an atheist, so I'm not defending the doctor's religion, and yes, maybe he's in the wrong field. I just think that you should all reserve your incredulity for other things.

The young woman in the story could have gone to a different hospital initially. She didn't. She was able to get what she needed elsewhere so it worked out. Yes, there are places in this country where the religious hospital is the only one for miles around. It sucks. However, if they are private entities, they get to make their own rules.

So now go ahead and flame me, even though I, for the most part, agree with you...

[dajoki]

18. She probably went to the nearest...

one. I give her credit for thinking that fast. Does this religious hospital get government funds? If they do than they should be taken away.

[madfloridian]

20. Is that you, Joe Lieberman?

"Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so.

"In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said."

http://ctbob.blogspot.com/2006/05/lieberman-vs-day-after-pill.html

[dajoki]

30. Why doesn't he just...

put an (R) after his name already? What an ass.

[Lars39]

26. Doesn't hold water if they accept one dime of public funds,

even if it is reimbursement for a Medicare patient.

[JerseygirlCT]

62. Exactly nt

[smoogatz]

31. Not every rape victim/ER patient is going to have that choice.

My feeling is that if it's a legal procedure/treatment, FDA approved as safe and effective, and a patient in duress requests it--that patient's right to be treated trumps the doctor's right to be a fundie asshole. The doctor has a professional obligation to provide the best, most complete care possible--his/her personal moral judgments should play no part in determining what treatment is or isn't appropriate.

[SteelPenguin]

35. I mostly agree with you

It's a tough issue. My wife and I were talking about it last night, she taking the side most prevalent here on DU.

I however don't think it's as cut and dry. First of all, in all these cases, the women were able to recieve the treatment they wanted, sometimes at the same facility with a different doctor, sometimes at a clinic across town a few hours later. Same for the situations with the pharmacies refusing to provide birth control or whatnot. So in no case, to my knowlege, as one of these doctors or pharmacists refusing treatment actually prevented a woman from recieving treatment.

Secondly, doctors do have to make decisions based on their own morality. Whether it be performing abortions, prescribing the morning after pill, assisting suicide, etc. If female circumscision were legal in this country because it was prescribed in the bible, and a doctor refused to perform the act now deemed 'medical' because he felt it barbaric, unnecessary, and abusive towards women, would people have the same feelings as this case? If assisted suicide was legal should a doctor be forced to do it? Medicine is instrinsically filled with moral questions. Can we force someone to perform an act they consider morally wrong? Perhaps you could put this in place for new doctors entering medical school, but for someone practicing medicine for thirty years without such restrictions can you really make the argument of "if they don't do it they should lose their job."

Thirdly, this wasn't a discriminatory act. People in these conversations occasionally bring up a hospital not treating a patient because he was gay, or refusing to give a woman a physical becuase she was a single mother and they disagreed with that 'lifestyle'. These have happened and they are dispicable because they are discriminatory. It's a separate issue, and shouldn't be tied to this question. If a doctor would give one woman a morning after pill, but not another, then that's discriminatory. If he doesn't give it to anyone because he has a moral and ethical problem with doing so, it's a separate issue. Medical discrimination is very wrong, but a separate issue.

Fourthly, this is the sort of situation that in other countries would be solved by 'feet on pavement'. If you don't like the service being offered, leave and go somewhere else. If the refusal of that service you believe was wrong then organize protests. Distribute pamphlets. Organize groups against the doctor and hospital. Coordinate people in your community to not use that hospital, to demand ambulances take patients to other hospitals, to leave the service there. Unfortunately this might be something you'd see in France these days but not the United States where people's eyes glaze over when you start talking about actually "taking action".

So in summation...
1) The women in these anecdotes all eventually find treatment elsewhere.
2) Forcing people to act against their own moral code is a scary thought.
3) It's not comparable to discrimination cases.
4) Why can't American's protest the old fashioned way?

I think a good law would not be to force all doctors to prescribe these medicines, but instead to require that doctors who treat rape cases should. This is where the most psychological damage can occur, particularly from a refusal. Any doctor treating rape cases should be required by law to offer it as an option. Every clinic or hospital must offer at least one doctor at all times on staff capable of this treatment. It should include some separate training for the doctors in how to handle rape cases with a little more compassion. Don't force a doctor to do it if they don't want, but require hospitals to hire at least one doctor to have on staff and on call at any given time to be able to provide this sort of treatment for cases where the woman could be psychologically delicate and might not just think "oh well I'll go to another hospital"

Since this opinion got me flamed in real life from my wife, I'll expect it here as well. ;)

[smoogatz]

37. No flames from me; just total disagreement.

1.It's likely that all rape victims will not be able/willing to search all over town for appropriate treatment. What if the woman had been beaten, say, and required additional medical care? Is she supposed to call around until she can find a hospital that will provide comprehensive treatment, or is it reasonable to expect a consistent protocol for rape victims in ANY hospital? You know, one that places a premium on the victim's well-being, as opposed to the doctor's "right" to impose his beliefs on other people? The fact that in this case the victim could go to another provider doesn't mean she should have to; nor does it mean that another provider will be available in all cases, or that the victim will be able to successfully avail herself of that provider, assuming it exists. In many smaller towns or rural areas, there's ONE hospital with ONE emergency room. If the rape happens on a Friday night and the victim can't get emergency contraception from the ER doc, where would you suggest she go?

2.The two moral analogs you cite--female circumcision and assisted suicide--are both telling and logically inconsistent. They're telling because of what those choices of analogy say about your beliefs: that the morning after pill is somehow equivalent to female circumcision--the ritual mutilation of the female genitalia, which is banned in all developed nations as painful, dangerous and entirely medically unnecessary--and assisted suicide, in which a doctor actively participates in ending a patient's life. Of course, in the world of medicine there's simply no comparison: the morning-after pill is a non-abortificant; it doesn't end pregnancy, it prevents it. They're logically inconsistent as analogies because both practices are currently illegal in this country--the legal system has stepped in and settled the issue for doctors preemptively (though many doctors do quietly perform assisted suicides and euthanasia in this country, despite the legal prohibitions against it). This is absolutely not the case with emergency contraception--in fact the opposite is true: the FDA has declared it safe and effective; it's an entirely legal product that's available in many countries over the counter. A doctor refusing to provide it on "moral grounds" makes as much sense as if he'd refused to offer an aspirin on moral grounds.

3.You say that forcing people to act against their own moral code is a scary thought--but government does it all the time. I don't approve of the fact that my taxes are used to fund the war in Iraq, but if I refuse to pay taxes in accord with my beliefs the government will throw me in jail. If there were a military draft and I refused to submit to conscription, the government would throw me in jail--no matter how vociferously I argued that my moral code does not permit the killing of other human beings. Why should a fundamentalist doctor's moral code be privileged over everyone else's? If the doctor in question was a Christian Scientist and refused to treat anyone except with prayer, should he retain his job in the ER? What if the doctor were a Santeria practitioner and treated his patients exclusively with animal sacrifice, songs and incantations? By your logic, these "physicians" are only acting in accord with their beliefs, and shouldn't be required by law to practice a form of medicine that violates those beliefs. But would you want to be treated by a Santeria healer if you had to go the the ER? Most likely, you'd want a REAL doctor--one that provided the best care possible according to the clinically proven, AMA-approved methodology of western medicine. Aren't rape victims entitled to the same consideration?

4.It's clearly discriminatory, because it only happens to women. Men get raped, of course, but they don't get pregnant. Fundamentalist doctors only withhold appropriate medical treatment in the form of emergency contraception from women--which is de facto discrimination.

5.The proper remedy for this issue lies in the courts. Women ought to be able to expect that the nearest ER will treat them with compassion AND with the full range of legal, effective medical options at their disposal. If doctors refuse to provide the best possible care to their patients, male or female, gay or straight, they should be required to find another line of work--one that allows them to be assholes on their own time, without affecting other people's lives.

[SteelPenguin]

55. I appreciate the lack of flames

1) I completely agree with you, which is why I mentioned in my last paragraph that an appropriate law would be to require that every hospital have at least one doctor on staff or on call who is trained to handle rape cases, part of which would be to be required to offer and prescribe the morning after pill. A rape case should not be handled by any old random doctor, nor should it be handled by one not willing to offer all legal means to treat the situation. If a rural area if their is one hospital and one er, then I think by law they should have at least one doctor capable of treating patients such as these. Hell, they won't complain. Call it extra training, and hold the conference they have to attend in Florida during the winter and make them pay for it themselves. They'd be turning away applicants. I don't think, however, that every doctor should be automatically placed under this restriction no matter their place in their careers.

2 and 3) It's tough finding appropriate moral analogs I admit, but I don't think they're logically inconsistent or telling. Just lazyness in finding appropriate comparisons, but logically consistent on a wider scope. The fact of the matter is that there simply are doctors who feel it is morally wrong to prescribe the morning after pill. You and I think these people are somewhere between insane and batshit crazy, but hey...moral relativism I guess...The point is that they have a belief, and swore an oath many of them which included to not commit abortions (yes it's in versions of the hippocratic oath). Why should a fundies moral code be privileged? It shouldn't per se. The thing with a santeria practicitioner or a christian scientist using prayer and animal sacrifice is that they're not practicing medicine. They're not selectivly choosing procedures they believe are ethical within the practice of medicine, nor are they trained in medicine. They're trained in prayer and santeria. A doctor is trained in medicine and, somewhat, trained to view the ethical and moral use of that medicine. Doctors refuse treatment all the time for ethical and moral reasons other than this one. This is particularly hot button though because it involves "abortion". (I use quotes because as you point out it's just preventing pregnancy still...like calling condoms "abortion"). Again, as I mentioned in my initial post, I believe that rape victims should be required by law to be treated by doctors trained in dealing psychologically with rape cases, and required by law as doctors certified to treat rape cases to offer the morning after pill.

3)One more note about forcing people to act against their moral viewpoint. I find it interesting that both sides claim moral viewpoint in the argument. Pro-Lifers want to tell a woman what she can do based on their own particular moral viewpoint, the the Pro-Choicers what to tell a doctor what she can do based on their own particular moral viewpoint. I personally think nobody should be able to tell anyone else what they can or cant't do to their own bodies based on their own moral code. Period. Whether that means doctors not prescribing medicines, or being allowed to. As far as the government doing it all the time...It's the same argument the pro-lifers use. Tax dollars to fund abortions. Tax dollars to fund stem cell research. Tax dollars to fund war. Oh wait, pro-lifers don't care about you after you're born. I forgot. Sorry, my point is that there are things you can do. You CAN refuse to pay. Yes you'll be arrested, but you'll be following your moral code if that's what it is. Or you can leave the country and move to one where you don't have to pay taxes. If you choose to keep paying taxes because you don't want to be in jail, nor do you leave the country, then your own personal moral code isn't particularly stringent in regard to indirectly funding war, imho. No offence of course. It'd take alot to do either of those, but you ARE making your own decision in that regard. You're a bit behind the barrels, but it's still your choice. What if the government drafted you and put a gun in your hands and then told you to kill? Would you or would you refuse, even if it meant jail time?

4) I'm not sure I agree, but I wouldn't put up too much of a fight. I think that it partly comes from where the doctor is coming from. If the doctor is refusing because of their own personal moral code, and does so to all women it's not discriminatory in my mind, because if there were something similiar he could do at that point to the main, he'd refuse it as well. I know there are plenty of people on this board at least that feel these doctors are anti-woman, and I disagree. I think they're self-centered and self-important, particularly OB-GYNies, and thanks to our wonderfull insurance system they're focused on making the most money on procedures which has lead to our skyrocketing c-section rates and other problems, but I digress...they have other problems which are the root, but I don't think they're sexist or discriminatory, more culturally when it comes to the being of 'doctor'.

5) I agree. I just don't think it needs to be systemwide. Maybe ER doctors need to be required to prescribe the medicine etc. I just don't think all doctors do. That way if they had a problem with it, they could choose to not be an ER doctor. The fact is that there are plenty of doctors in this country who have beliefs that aren't yours or mine, and part of me being pro-choice is to not force my views on other people, so they dont' force theirs on mine. I just think there has to be some compromise here.

[smoogatz]

58. You said:

"Doctors refuse treatment all the time for ethical and moral reasons other than this one." I'm trying to think of analogous instances in which this might be the case, and honestly, I'm having a hard time. If the treatment or procedure is safe, effective and legal, what sort of treatment/procedure would it have to be for a qualified physician to refuse to offer it on ethical/moral grounds? Perhaps there's occasional moral gray area in certain elective surgeries (breast augmentation for teenagers, or gender reassignment, etc), but there are generally well-established protocols for dealing with such issues. Other than those few oddities and abortion, I'm stumped--and you've already agreed that abortion is not in any way analogous to emergency contraception.

You also call for compromise, but you don't really say what form that should take, except that all ERs that handle rape cases (and I think most, if not all, do) should be required to have a doc on staff or on call who is willing to prescribe emergency contraception. I think that's a fine idea, but I'd go one step further than that: I'd suggest that ALL ER docs who are likely to find themselves treating rape victims MUST agree to provide the full range of services to those patients, including the offer of emergency contraception, in order to retain their state-issued licenses to practice medicine. If they refuse, they can go into some other specialty or area of practice in which their religious beliefs will not put them at odds with the best interests of their patients.

[SteelPenguin]

59. I have no problem with that

ER doctors should be capable of offering every possible range of treatment. They should be required by law to prescribe the MAP. If a doctor believes it's wrong, they shouldn't be in emergency medicine.

As long as doctors have the choice of not pursuing a practice where they can choose their own moral basis for practicing medicine, and rape victims are treated with the MAP, i'm happy. I mainly just have a problem making the law *waves hands around* broad spectrum.

For most procedures that intrude into Doctor's personal moral decisions, they aren't emergencies, and the patient has the time and ability to find a doctor willing to treat them. The only time this isn't the case is most likely Emergency Medicine.

Would you agree to that compromise? Requiring by law any doctor practicing in the ER or a designated Rape Victim Care facility, or other Emergency treatment facility, to prescribe upon request the MAP. Not ALL doctors, just ones that involve Rape and Emergency circumstances?

[smoogatz]

60. Sure. I'd think seriously about extending it to all OBGYNs--

you know, those doctors who specialize in treating health issues specific to women--but of course there's no reason that dermatoligists and heart surgeons, say, should be required to prescribe emergency contraception.

[shimmergal]

42. At least, he should have told her before

he began the examination.

Having a gyn exam is not pleasant at the best of times. After being raped, it would surely be a lot worse. To find out _afterwards_ that the examining doctor had so little respect for one that his "moral purity" would trump your own need to not have your life ruined would feel like another rape, I'd imagine. He sounds like a creepy character.

[SteelPenguin]

54. Totally Creepy

You'd think that with a rape case they'd put a doc with a good bedside manner on it. Some doctors are just complete pricks though, completely high on their own sense of power and importance. You know, the kind of doctor that makes you undress and sit their naked waiting for a half hour till they come in with their very specifically long white lab coat, then dismissing any questions you have etc.

As I mentioned in my post, I think an appropriate law would be to make anyone who treats rape cases to have not only training in how to psychologically handle these cases and stop being power doctors for just a few minutes, but also to be required if theyr'e treating a rape case, to offer the full range of options.

[harun]

47. My wife works at a Catholic hospital and it is required there that if

someone comes in who was raped and they ask for the morning after pill that they get it.

[JerseygirlCT]

61. And how much public financing do they get?

If there's any, any at all, they cease to have any stand here.

If these places want to put their money where their "values" are, then quit accepting public money, period. Then they'll go out of business, most likely (and whatever they like to say, they are a business) and be replaced, as needed, by hospitals that are truly interested in serving the needs of their patients, not massaging their own "morals" driven egos.

[lwcon]

19. The whole article is quite disturbing, well-worth reading

It's a great example of why atheists should ignore everyone who tells us to STFU.

It's immoral for us to turn the other cheek while this country gets more and more wrapped up in superstition, and lives, new cures, and honest science education are at stake -- and so much more.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[proud patriot]

22. Infuriating

:grr:

[tinymontgomery]

23. We should at least make them put a huge sign

on their door that says "I'm a religious fanatic and if you don't have my values go somewhere else". And they should never be allowed to work in an emergency room.

[femrap]

25. The women in the community where

'Dr.' Gish resides should demonstrate at his house with signs that say: Dr. Gish supports rapists. Dr. Gish cares more about criminals than his patients.

[Lars39]

27. And if you think your hospital is safe from this because it isn't a Catholic Hospital,

think again. Baptist Hospital in Nashville has merged with St Thomas. The result is that OB/GYNs aren't even supposed to talk about birth control with their patients, according to their contract. My OB/GYN said that at this point the docs do it anyway, and the hospital ignores it. Some day that hospital will enforce that contract, leaving women up shit creek.

[FloridaJudy]

29. Now I've REALLY got spittle on my keyboard!

I figured the information in this article had to be fairly old, since post-coital contraception has been available over-the-counter for some time. A woman no longer needs a prescription to get it if she's over seventeen (and many providers are happy to phone them in for younger women without requiring a medical visit). So I Googled "Plan B". The first website promised "free confidential information", so I clicked on it.

IT'S A FREAKING "RIGHT TO LIFE" WEBSITE! In order to get to the info on Plan B, you first have to see some pro-natalist flash commercial about how precious life is. This was nauseating enough, but when I clicked on the "information about Plan B", what I read was completely one-sided - describing at length how "dangerous" it was, without acknowledging its effectiveness, or admitting that pregnancy itself is more of a health hazard. Worse, it was inaccurate, describing risks and side effects commonly associated with the older "morning after" pills, but not with Plan B. I'm a medical professional: I know this stuff. The average woman who unwittingly clicks on this site doesn't.
:argh:

These fucking people don't even have the guts to be honest! If they'd advertised the site as offering "alternatives to abortion", I'd be okay with this. But they're shoving misinformation down the throats of women who are at their most vulnerable.

This does relate to the OP. Any hospital that offers medical care to the victim of a sexual assault is obligated to offer post-coital contraception. It's in the job description. If the hospital is unwilling or unable to do this, then they should be forced to say so from the very start and refer the patient to a hospital that does.

The same goes for the doctor. If he or she has moral objections to contraception, then that person has no business going into gynecology. Better to choose a specialty like orthopedics or dermatology. I don't insist that all gynecologists be forced to perform abortions - that would be Draconian. But if they don't want to perform that procedure, they should be honest with their clients before accepting them as patients, saying something like "My personal beliefs forbid abortion. If you're uncomfortable with that, you might want to get your gynecological health care with another provider".

Again, it's a question of honesty. The "right to life" fanatics seem constitutionally incapable of that.

(Edited for grammar; my proof-reading skills suck when I'm this angry.)

[DemBones DemBones]

33. You might take into consideration that many

websites are not regularly updated. You could write to the site owner and explain that there is outdated information on the site.

Speaking of having the guts to be honest, why does the pro-abortion lobby fight informed consent laws? Why does the pro-abortion lobby not want mothers to see a sonogram of their baby to fully understand what his/her developmental stage is?

If the movement were really "pro-choice," it would let the women see the sonograms and make their own choices. Trouble is, the sonogram reveals that it's not "a bunch of cells" or "a scab" but a tiny human baby, which is certain to make some mothers choose to continue their pregnancies. Why is that wrong? It's an informed choice then. Without a sonogram, it's an uninformed choice.

Is it really better for a woman to have an abortion believing the "it's just a few cells" lie told at the abortion clinic and later see photos of what a baby that age looks like? That's what happened to a friend of mine and it pretty much destroyed her life.

If you think it would be Draconian to require gynecologists to do abortions, don't you think it would also be Draconian to require physicians to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense abortefacients?

Physicians frequently refuse to prescribe drugs that have nothing to do with reproduction. All physicians have their personal views about which drugs are best and how much to prescribe, and are often unwilling to vary that even when the patient's symptoms don't improve. Do we need to pass laws that say doctors can't have personal views about the practice of medicine? Or do we just need to let patients find M.D.s who will give them the treatment they need?

[Solon]

34. There's a distinct difference between not prescribing medication for medical reasons...

Rather than just moral reasons. One is an informed and generally rational opinion of the doctor on how to best treat the patient. The other is just morality wrapped up in hubris, at best. Now, onto your other point:

why does the pro-abortion lobby fight informed consent laws?

Because we see no reason to have girls try to justify their own decisions before a court of law, or risk abuse towards them due to unforgiving parents.

Why does the pro-abortion lobby not want mothers to see a sonogram of their baby to fully understand what his/her developmental stage is?

This ones easier than the last, its simple really, because no one should be forced to do ANYTHING about a medical condition or treatment that is absolutely required by law. Their body, their choice, period.

For EVERY law that restricts access to abortions, a woman dies, whether due to not being able to access that medical procedure, or from the hands of another, usually a "loved one". Who are the REAL people who are truly pro-life?

[smoogatz]

38. This is one of the most ill-informed, intellectually dishonest posts

I've ever seen on DU. And that's saying something.

[Lars39]

39. Agreed.

[Lars39]

40. And just where did she see those soul-destroying photos?

In the Baptist church, with the preacher consigning her to hell, while the congregation throws money into the offering plates so that they can buy ultra-sound machines for the church-sponsored clinics?

[shimmergal]

43. If women were also told other facts

at the time, like the relative risks of childbirth and abortion, or how likely they'll be able to collect full child support if the male partner just walks away, and how little support for child-rearing our society provides if the parents can't do it all themselves, _then_ providing the sonograms might be OK.

But the woman shouldn't _have_ to see it, even then.

[MrsMatt]

44. and why use "pro-abortion"?

I don't think you will find any pro-choice person who is "pro-abortion"- that's the sort of inflammatory and devisive phrase I've heard primarily used by the right.

[KittyWampus]

49. My RIGHT to an abortion is unconditional. There is zero medical reason for making me see a sonogram

The only reason to force a woman to see a sonogram of a fetus she wants aborted is to try and inflict guilt upon her.

[pagandem4justice]

50. Contraception is not an abortifacient.

Others have already addressed the most inflammatory statements of your nonsensical post, so I will address only this one part, which actually stuck in my craw even more than the rest:

don't you think it would also be Draconian to require physicians to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense abortefacients?

The woman in the article, who was a victim of rape (though it should not matter, really), was not pregnant (yet), and as such did not seek an abortion, chemical or surgical...which is what an "abortifacient" does. It causes an already implanted blastocyst or zygote to be expelled from the body.

The woman in question sought emergency contraception, or EC...commonly known as "Plan B." Plan B is contraception, meaning that it prevents fertilization and/or implantation from occurring in the first place. It does this through chemical (hormonal) means, through a high dose of progesterone. The "spike" in progestins in the woman's body, followed by the steep drop in hormone levels as the hormones disperse, triggers the body to have a period. Get it? "contra-" = "against," or "not permitting to occur." There is no conception (implantation), therefore there can by definition be no abortion.

Stated briefly: Contraception prevents pregnancy. Contraception is not abortion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. I think this is a rather different issue to pharmacists.

I see no reason why a pharmacist should be compelled to sell anything they don't want to by the state (although I wouldn't employ anyone as a pharmacist who wouldn't sell all the products I wanted sold).

But a doctor has a duty of care to a patient, and they should be required to fulfil that duty, even if it means subordinating their own values to the patients.

[dansolo]

63. Pharmacists are not licensed to prescribe medicine

They should never be allowed to override a doctor's prescription, PERIOD.

[SaveElmer]

45. Then they should find another profession...it really is that simple...nt

[knitter4democracy]

46. *%&^$&$*#&%&^&*!!!!!

G-D them!!

I don't freakin' care if he doesn't believe in it for himself, but if he's her doctor, then he has to keep to the standard of care or get sued for malpractice. Plain and simple.

I hope she's got a caring general care doc who will do the exams and make sure she's okay. She could get cancer from HPV or have scar tissue that needs healing. Dammit! That dolt needs a shock to his system, I tell you what!

I can understand a surgeon refusing to do an abortion--as long as she or he gives the patient a contact number for a doctor who will. Just because she's given a phone number doesn't mean she'll use it. Just because a patient asks for EC doesn't mean she'll take it. Yes, she probably will, but patient compliance rates aren't all that great, and there's always that possibility. He can use that as his logical out to assuage his conscience.

Jerk didn't show an ounce of compassion.

If I'd been in her shoes, I would've gone straight to the hospital's board of directors. Then I would've gone for his license and his certification. I would've screamed until someone could hear me. Granted, I've been assaulted by a radiology tech and couldn't get anything to happen, but I sure screamed and hollered. They made changes, and she got bumped down in her training, and I got it on the record. She's gotten it on the record, and she needs to keep pushing for change when she feels ready.

I come from an evangelical background, and I even went to an evangelical college. I knew most of the pre-meds since Hubby was one, and I know that one was thinking of becoming an Ob/Gyn but refusing to do abortions. She wouldn't talk with me about it, though, so I never got the chance to find out her thinking on it. To my way of thinking, it's about mercy and compassion--and Christians are supposed to have those.

Freakin' jerk. I hope he gets on his knees and begs forgiveness for his sin.

[CK_John]

53. Someone should start a web site "Medicine with Issues" and post

these medical providers and location of drug chains that deny needed medical procedures or drugs based on non medical issues.

This could be organized by locale and people could check before going to these places.

[johnaries]

66. If they can't do their JOB, then they should find another job!

I feel the same way about Pharmacists. IT IS THEIR JOB! If their job requires doing something that's against their religion, then they should change jobs. period. End of story.

[Pushed To The Left]

67. The right wing will try to spin it as "religious freedom", but in reality these doctors are imposing

their religious beliefs on sometimes helpless patients. What about the rights of the patient to get the treatment he or she deserves? Is it "religious freedom" for an employer to discriminate against job applicants of a different religion? Is it "religious freedom" for somebody to beat up a gay person because his religion opposes homosexuality? The right wing needs to be taken out of power, which is why I sometimes get so angry at Democrats who will give up and let the right wing win in 2008 if their candidate doesn't win the primary.