Right of conscient objection and right to medicine

[Didacus]

Now before you go off saying that whatever the Catholic church states on this affair should dominate any christian doctor's decisions, consider that this opens the door for other religions to step in and dictate a doctor's decision. If a doctor's religious beliefs is that a blood transfusion is wrong and thus refuses such a procedure and lets his patient die; did he make a moral choice? You might disagree with his morals, but if you say that a Catholic doctor should refuse certain treatments, this right would apply to all doctors as per their own moral.

The question might not be as easy as it seems.


So which is most important; the right of the patient, or the right of the doctor?


I am trying to obtain an opinion from my father and sister (both doctors) on the following article;

[url="http://www.thefactis.org/default.aspx?control=ArticleMaster&aid=293&authid=11"]http://www.thefactis.org/default.aspx?cont...d=293&authid=11[/url]

Ils sont fous ces Europeens?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jan 5 2006, 11:16 AM']Now before you go off saying that whatever the Catholic church states on this affair should dominate any christian doctor's decisions, consider that this opens the door for other religions to step in and dictate a doctor's decision.  If a doctor's religious beliefs is that a blood transfusion is wrong and thus refuses such a procedure and lets his patient die; did he make a moral choice?  You might disagree with his morals, but if you say that a Catholic doctor should refuse certain treatments, this right would apply to all doctors as per their own moral.

The question might not be as easy as it seems.
So which is most important; the right of the patient, or the right of the doctor?
I am trying to obtain an opinion from my father and sister (both doctors) on the following article;

[url="http://www.thefactis.org/default.aspx?control=ArticleMaster&aid=293&authid=11"]http://www.thefactis.org/default.aspx?cont...d=293&authid=11[/url]

Ils sont fous ces Europeens?
[right][snapback]846654[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Pharmacists and doctors should be upfront with their employers about their ethical standards before they are hired. I worked as a pharmacy technician for a while, and I made it absolutely clear when I was interviewed that I would not so much as handle a contraceptive prescription. They hired me anyway. If they could no longer accept my conditions, I would gladly quit.

That's how I feel about the matter. We need to get conscience laws passed, but until then, if you are going to pursue a field such as pharmacy or medicine, realize that it may involve personal sacrifice.

As far as the standards go, someone has to win. If doctors are not allowed to refuse abortive surgeries, then the principle of those who oppose such a policy is excluded. If someone's point of view has to win out, as it does, then yes, it should always be that of the Church.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Era Might

[Church Punk]

This is a very sticky subject, there are so many cases that are all valid, I can not come to a conclusion.

Both the doctor and patient have the moral right to decide what should happen.

Thats all I will say. I will let others have a go at this one, it is quite complex!

Edited January 5, 2006 by Church Punk

[Tata126]

I agree with Church Punk on this. My family doctor won't refer anyone to get an abortion, but that doesn't mean they can't go find an abortionist on their own. It just means they won't have a referral. Similarly, a pharmacist who won't handle contraceptives doesn't keep a customer from getting the contraceptives; they can always go to someone else. And if a doctor or a pharmacist of another religion refused to give me treatment for something because of their religion, I'd respect their conscience and go to someone else.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Tata126' date='Jan 5 2006, 11:23 AM']I agree with Church Punk on this.  My family doctor won't refer anyone to get an abortion, but that doesn't mean they can't go find an abortionist on their own.  It just means they won't have a referral.  Similarly, a pharmacist who won't handle contraceptives doesn't keep a customer from getting the contraceptives; they can always go to someone else.  And if a doctor or a pharmacist of another religion refused to give me treatment for something because of their religion, I'd respect their conscience and go to someone else.
[right][snapback]846779[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

But your statement lies on the fact that the option exists somewhere else. Imagine the case in rural communities where there is only a single doctor that can perform these things? What then, does giving an aobrtion become a moral duty of the doctor?

[Era Might]

Abortion can never be a moral duty, because it is an act of murder.

[qfnol31]

I think that this falls back on Natural Law as well as what relgious belief a person has.

[Deeds]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jan 5 2006, 06:04 PM']But your statement lies on the fact that the option exists somewhere else.  Imagine the case in rural communities where there is only a single doctor that can perform these things?  What then, does giving an aobrtion become a moral duty of the doctor?
[right][snapback]846832[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, I think the report meant that doctors who don't have a moral objection to abortion should be available to perform abortions in rural areas. It said that conscientious objection and access to abortion are rights and that neither should be sacrificed in favour of the other. I suppose you could have a situation where every doctor in the country is a conscientious objector though...

What about a doctor who is ethically opposed to treating parts of the body beginning with the letter 'f' and thinks appendectomies are only moral if they're carried out on the third Tuesday of the month? Should he be allowed to abstain from carrying out these procedures? I don't think so.. I also think that being opposed to blood tranfusions is rather crazy. In my mind there's a world of difference between objecting to blood transfusions and objecting to abortions, but I'm well aware that it's because of my outlook on abortion. It's an interesting legal question...

[Tata126]

I think we're working under the false assumption that there is a "right" to medicine. I know a lot of people are going to yell at me for this, but I don't really think it's an intrinsic moral right. It's a great thing, and lots of people would die without it, but its a service provided by one person for another person. Doctors who go to third-world countries are performing acts of charity, not carrying out duties... the people there have a need for medicine, but not a moral right to it, and no one would be able to accuse Doctors Without Borders of murder if they went bankrupt and weren't able to go to Africa anymore. Similarly, if I had a life-threatening disease, in this country where the poorest people get healthcare, I'd expect to be treated, but if no one could provide the treatment I wouldn't have a moral right to it anyway. On the contrary, everyone has a moral right to act according to his own conscience.

Basically what I'm saying, I guess, is that this is only an issue because Medicare has given us this idea that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty, and federal subsidized healthcare.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Tata126' date='Jan 5 2006, 10:12 PM']I think we're working under the false assumption that there is a "right" to

[snip]

federal subsidized healthcare.
[right][snapback]847590[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i think you are touching on an aspect that is crucial to the argument and I believe you have a very strong point.

However;

- a Doctor makes an oath (at least in Canada) to protect life; thus does it become a duty to care for his fellow man?

- i can save a life by sharing a glass of water, but I won't; I have no moral duty to save the life of my next of kin. My point is if you can save a life, I believe you have the duty to do so. Not getting involved is not really an option because you are your brother's keeper.

[Didacus]

Here is another artcile:

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4588450.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4588450.stm[/url]

[Tata126]

That's a really good point, and I don't quite know how to answer it, except by pointing out that if you're talking about refusing to distribute contraception or perform abortions, you're not refusing to save lives. It would be different if a doctor refused to remove ectopic pregnancies, for instance. But if a doctor's conscience wouldn't allow him to remove ectopic pregnancies, or do something else morally good or neutral to save the life of someone else... I don't know, I guess he would have an obligation.

Perhaps the difference is between somebody honestly not being able to give the glass of water because it's against his conscience (why giving someone a glass of water would be against anyone's conscience is beyond me, but I'm just trying to stick with the example) and somebody not giving a glass of water just because he's perverse. It seems like if you have a moral objection to something, it's because it's harmful in some way. So someone would only be able to morally refuse to give a dying man a glass of water if he knew or believed it to be seriously harmful. Regarding abortion or contraception, of course, there is no case in which abortion is necesssary to preserve the mother's life, that's been discussed innumerable times, and I should expect the same thing to be true of contraception.

Unless the contraception is being taken as a medication to treat another problem, and the person isn't sexually active. That's a completely different question.

[sraf]

[quote]I think we're working under the false assumption that there is a "right" to medicine. I know a lot of people are going to yell at me for this, but I don't really think it's an intrinsic moral right. It's a great thing, and lots of people would die without it, but its a service provided by one person for another person. Doctors who go to third-world countries are performing acts of charity, not carrying out duties... the people there have a need for medicine, but not a moral right to it[/quote]
In the United States, it is recognized that all men are created equal, and are endowed with indisputable rights by the Creator to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Life and Pursuit of Happiness are both covered (to an extent, of course) by medicine.
Similarly, the Hippocratic Oath, sworn by doctors, promises to ease suffering and increase quality of life. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) Now, the Oath itself has come under attack lately, but still, I'd say it's a good guide for doctors to go by.
[b]Didacus[/b] is right in that we are our brother's (and sister's) keepers.
I don't remember what an ecoptic pregnancy is, so I won't comment, but going to the blood transfusion question - if the doctor in question had a religious or whatever belief that blood is sacred and shouldn't be shared from one individual to another, no matter what the circumstances, well, that's not really fair. It kind of excludes reality, like how some Shakespearean plays aren't read anymore because times have changed since those plays were written. But if that doctor has a perfectly sensible, rational view of blood transfusions, but doesn't want to donate a particular amount of blood to a particular donor? That's something else. The blood to be donated could be infected with the HIV virus or some other unsavory disease, or the blood could be of a different type than the person who needs a transfusion, in which case the transfusion could kill the patient. If the doctor is the only one who knows this, and cannot secure a different donor in time and the victim dies, of course people are going to be angry. But if the doctor was only trying to help the victim, is it the victim's fault?
In short, I voted for extenuating circumstances. But really, the patient and doctor should decide together - unless one or the other, for whatever reason, isn't able to make a fully informed, conscientious decision (the little kid screaming in the doctor's office about getting a flu shot is not going to decide whether or not to get the flu shot. Not on my watch.)

[Didacus]

My sister's response to the questioin:

[quote]"Je crois que les médecins doivent respecter le choix des patientes.  C'est elle après tout qui doivent vivre avec les conséquences morales, physiques et autres.  D'un autre coté, les patientes doivent aussi respecter le choix des médecins qui ne veulent pas faire des avortements et aller voir un autre qui en aurait pas d'objection."[/quote]

which translates to:

I believe that the doctor should respect the choice of patients. It is after all the patient who will live with the moral, physical and other types of consequences. On another side, the patients should also respect the choice of the doctors who do not want to perform abortions and go see a doctor who does not have an objection.






I think she is avoiding the question because she knows my opinion. I think she did not perform any abortions, but I am certain she recommended it and refers others to it. In my book that makes her an accomplice in murder and she does not want me to have that opinion of her specifically.

[Didacus]

sraf

I don't think I follow your reasoning clearly.

Your example with blood is not an example of applying morals, but one of simple good medical practice.

The question is should a doctor be forced to perform medical procedures against his moral judgement?