Dr refuses to treat unmarried couple.

Nevyn

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/doctor-quizzed-after-refusal-to-treat-unmarried-couple-for-infertility-453887.html

Doctor quizzed after refusal to treat unmarried couple for infertility

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/doctor-quizzed-after-refusal-to-treat-unmarried-couple-for-infertility-453887.html#ixzz0l5OmpwYI

14/04/2010 - 13:51:17
A doctor has been investigated by the Irish Medical Council after he declined to treat an unmarried couple for infertility.

According to the Irish Catholic newspaper the doctor, who runs a clinic in Galway, would not treat the couple because of his belief that only married people should have children.

Dr Phil Boyle, who runs a specialist fertility practice in Galway Clinic, a Catholic hospital, offers a treatment called napro technology which is fully compatible with the Catholic Church’s teaching on assisted human reproduction.

But Dr Boyle would not treat an unmarried couple who contacted him, because of his belief that only married people should have children.

He was summoned before the Irish Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Committee last week on a charge of professional misconduct, but was aquitted on what the Irish Catholic newspaper claims was a "technicality".

The paper said the couple could now take their case to the Equality Authority on the grounds that Dr Boyle is in breach of the Equal Status Act and that, if he is found guilty and fined, the case could potentially find its way to the Supreme Court.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/doctor-quizzed-after-refusal-to-treat-unmarried-couple-for-infertility-453887.html#ixzz0l5OkgMfI

Feeky Magee

Hopefully soon he will be ex-Dr. Phil Boyle.

seamus

He should be crucified under the equal status act (no pun). Your personal morality has no bearing on what treatment you provide to your patients.

If you don't like that, don't be a doctor. It's a scientific discipline, not an art, you don't get do what you want based on your emotions.

Noffles

**** like this just doesn't surprise me anymore... ten years ago maybe when in the UK I would of been shocked... but now, in Ireland, nope...

Benincasa

This doctor is dead right.

Liberalism means tolerating and respecting people, even when you happen to disagree with them.

seamus

Benincasa wrote: »

This doctor is dead right.

Liberalism means tolerating and respecting people, even when you happen to disagree with them.

Your two statements are at odd with eachother, is there a typo here. Where was the respect and tolerance shown by the doctor for these two people who engaged his services as a medical health professional, and not as a religious guidance counsellor?

Unfortunately this guy was acquitted on a technicality:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2010/0414/ireland/doctor-in-fertility-row-acquitted-453905.html

:rolleyes:
With any luck, his reputation is mud now and his patients are going elsewhere.

cbyrd

Benincasa wrote: »

This doctor is dead right.

Liberalism means tolerating and respecting people, even when you happen to disagree with them.

regardless of the doctors personal views he does not have the right to sit in judgement on anyones marital status... being married does not automatically make you a good parent. or a better one

NewDirection

seamus wrote: »

If you don't like that, don't be a doctor. It's a scientific discipline, not an art, you don't get do what you want based on your emotions.

Of course he should have a say as to who he can treat. Do you think everyone who applies for this treatment should be accepted.

I can sure think of a few situations where I wouldn't give people fertility treatment. For example, if it seems like the parents could not support the child well enough, I would not give them the treatment.

For the record not being married would not be one of them, to me.

Das Kitty

seamus wrote: »

With any luck, his reputation is mud now and his patients are going elsewhere.

AFAIK it's only available in Galway in Ireland that particular technology.

There's more here:
http://www.fertilitycare.ie/

Links at the bottom of the page.

Benincasa

seamus wrote: »

Your two statements are at odd with eachother, is there a typo here. Where was the respect and tolerance shown by the doctor for these two people who engaged his services as a medical health professional, and not as a religious guidance counsellor?

Unfortunately this guy was acquitted on a technicality:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2010/0414/ireland/doctor-in-fertility-row-acquitted-453905.html

:rolleyes:
With any luck, his reputation is mud now and his patients are going elsewhere.

No, there's no contradiction.

This doctor hasn't sought to prevent unmarried people from accessing fertility treatments. He has just refused to provide the treatment himself, in line with his conscience. It seems others, however, wish to force their morality on him.

seamus

NewDirection wrote: »

Of course he should have a say as to who he can treat. Do you think everyone who applies for this treatment should be accepted.

Of course not. But he should only be entitled to refuse treatment on a legal basis or where the treatment would be in breach of his duty as a doctor - i.e. where the mother's life would be jeopardised.

If he refuses treatment to someone who otherwise can afford it and has no legal reason why they cannot get it, then he should be stripped of his licence to practice.

Benincasa wrote: »

This doctor hasn't sought to prevent unmarried people from accessing fertility treatments. He has just refused to do this, in line with his conscience. It seems others, however, wish to force their morality on him.

As above. If he offers a treatment which is incompatible with his beliefs, then he should ignore his beliefs or stop providing the treatment.

The welfare of his patients takes utmost priority. His personal morality comes second.

Should a Jehovah's Witness doctor be permitted to refuse to do a blood transfusion on a patient because it contravenes his personal morality?

silja

For me it would depend; if he has his own practise or works at a private clinic, then yes, he should be able to choose who to treat and not have to compromise his own ethics (whether I agree with those ethics or not is irrelevant). But if he works at a public hospital or receives money from the state for his services, then he should treat everyone. The same goes for Muslim doctors not wanting to treat patients of the opposite sex or similar.

Moonbeam

Ireland does not give unmarried and married parents the same status or the same rights to adopt so I dunno if the equal status act can apply.

NewDirection

seamus wrote: »

Of course not. But he should only be entitled to refuse treatment on a legal basis or where the treatment would be in breach of his duty as a doctor - i.e. where the mother's life would be jeopardised.

If he refuses treatment to someone who otherwise can afford it and has no legal reason why they cannot get it, then he should be stripped of his licence to practice.
As above. If he offers a treatment which is incompatible with his beliefs, then he should ignore his beliefs or stop providing the treatment.

The welfare of his patients takes utmost priority. His personal morality comes second.

Should a Jehovah's Witness doctor be permitted to refuse to do a blood transfusion on a patient because it contravenes his personal morality?

Why can he not refuse them? Its an elective treatment. He's not endangering the mother by not treating her.
Why is this all about the mother too? Will someone please think of the children!!

Your Jehovah's Witness scenario is completely different. I'm not even going to indulge you on that point its so ridiculous.

seamus

Moonbeam wrote: »

Ireland does not give unmarried and married parents the same status or the same rights to adopt so I dunno if the equal status act can apply.

The equal status act states that it is illegal to discriminate against a person on the basis of their family status.

This basically means that it is illegal for someone who supplies goods or services on a commercial basis to discriminate against someone on the basis that they're single/married/divorced/widowed/childless/etc.

seamus

NewDirection wrote: »

Why can he not refuse them? Its an elective treatment. He's not endangering the mother by not treating her.
Why is this all about the mother too? Will someone please think of the children!!

What about the children? The doctor isn't a clairvoyant. He's not endangering the mother by refusing treatment, but he's giving their welfare (emotional/social/whatever) second fiddle to his own personal beliefs.

Your Jehovah's Witness scenario is completely different. I'm not even going to indulge you on that point its so ridiculous.

It's not really. It's one of a long list of situations where religious morality is at odds with medical science, I use it purely because it's the best known.

Nevyn

Unfortunately Drs here have been allowed to not deal with certain patients or contraceptives due to their religious beliefs.

NewDirection

seamus wrote: »

What about the children? The doctor isn't a clairvoyant. He's not endangering the mother by refusing treatment, but he's giving their welfare (emotional/social/whatever) second fiddle to his own personal beliefs.

I believe the Doctor should be allowed to refuse fertility treatment if he deems the family situation is not fit for a child to be brought up in.

seamus wrote: »

It's not really. It's one of a long list of situations where religious morality is at odds with medical science, I use it purely because it's the best known.

It's different, as refusing the treatment would endanger the patient. It is very different.

hatrickpatrick

The main issue I see with this is, if someone will discriminate on these grounds what's next? Refusing to treat a gay person with a lethal STD for example, or refusing to provide medical care for a pregnant teenager?

Personal morality and healthcare don't mix. And they shouldn't.

NewDirection

Handing out elective treatments without evaluating the patients situation first can be just as dangerous.

seamus

NewDirection wrote: »

I believe the Doctor should be allowed to refuse fertility treatment if he deems the family situation is not fit for a child to be brought up in.

Since when did an MD automatically qualify you as a social worker too?
If the doctor is concerned, he can ask someone suitably qualified to take a look, but he himself has no qualifications or basis on which to refuse the treatment.

NewDirection

seamus wrote: »

Since when did an MD automatically qualify you as a social worker too?
If the doctor is concerned, he can ask someone suitably qualified to take a look, but he himself has no qualifications or basis on which to refuse the treatment.

It is part of the job.

Benincasa

seamus wrote: »

Should a Jehovah's Witness doctor be permitted to refuse to do a blood transfusion on a patient because it contravenes his personal morality?

BIG difference.

A blood transfusion is a matter of life and death.

Fertility treatment is a purely elective treatment.

Benincasa

It seems to me that this doctor is concerned with the welfare of the children produced by fertility treatment. I presume that his assessment is that children of married people generally haver better outcomes. There is certainly plenty of research to support this.

Note: I am not saying that there aren't plenty of awful married parents and that there aren't plenty of brilliant single or cohabiting parents. There are plenty of both. However, in general, children do best when in MARRIED families.

It seems that those who want to hound him out of business are more concerned with the adults than with the children.

I would have thought that the child abuse scandals would have helped us to have a more child-focussed, rather than adult-focussed, approach on many of these sensitive issues.

The idea of being child centered is very relevant here. Who is most important in fertility treatment - the adults or the child? If we are so concerned with children's rights then there are implications that flow from this. A blunt application of the notion of equality does nothing to vindicate or recognise the rights of the child that will be conceived from fertility treatment. Equality is all about the adults and their satisfaction.

(NOTE: Before people try to distort my words, let me be clear. I am NOT equating unmarried/single people having children to child abuse. There is no moral equivalance here at all. Nor am I saying that unmarried/single parents are necessarily more likely to be abused. Nor am I trying to justify child abuse, clerical or otherwise. Nor am I trying to justify covering up abuse. I hope I have pre-emptively prevented people from distorting my words.)

Osgoodisgood

Benincasa wrote: »

It seems to me that this doctor is concerned with the welfare of the children produced by fertility treatment.

Cobblers. This doctor is concerned with his own version of morality that he gleaned from reading a dusty and scary old book.

I presume that his assessment is that children of married people generally haver better outcomes. There is certainly plenty of research to support this.

There is? I'd love to see it. Every statistic and survey I've ever seen illustrates absolutely no connection between marital status and "better outcomes"

It seems that those who want to hound him out of business are more concerned with the adults than with the children.

Who wants him out of business? People are rightly concerned with equal access to healthcare, particularly when that healthcare is in any way state funded.

I would have thought that the child abuse scandals would have helped us to have a more child-focussed, rather than adult-focussed, approach on many of these sensitive issues.

The idea of being child centered is very relevant here. Who is most important in fertility treatment - the adults or the child? If we are so concerned with children's rights then there are implications that flow from this. A blunt application of the notion of equality does nothing to vindicate or recognise the rights of the child that will be conceived from fertility treatment. Equality is all about the adults and their satisfaction.

Neat obfuscation. But not relevant to the issue.

Benincasa

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

There is? I'd love to see it. Every statistic and survey I've ever seen illustrates absolutely no connection between marital status and "better outcomes"


.

There is an abundance of evidence supporting married families as the best setting for raising children. It may not be politically correct, some may find it offensive, some may feel that the very idea of comparing family forms is in some way judgemental.

But it doesn't matter if people find it offensive. Refusing to face the scientific evidence is a form of irrational dogmatism. If we are really concerned about the rights of children, and let's not forget, it is the rights of children that are of highest importance in this debate, then we have to face the evidence even if it makes us uncomfortable, even if it contradicts our own limited anecdotal experience and even if it challenges the way we live our lives ourselves.

So, for starters, you can check out the Child Trends Institute. This is an independent research institute that seeks to research the conditions that lead to better outcomes for children.

You can read a summary of their report on this issue here:
http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf

As part of this review, they conclude:
“Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage"

You may also refer to the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and access a report from them here:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/MothersFathersMatter.pdf

Their review of the evidence states that:
“Marriage is an important social good associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike”,

and they concluded that having married paretns lessesn the likelihood of a range of unpleasent outcomes.

You may also refer to the recent report of the Brookings Institution, a left leaning think tank with ties to the Democratic Party.
http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/2009/creatinganopportunitysociety.aspx

Their conclusion:
“There is a growing consensus that having two married parents is the best environment for children. Marriage brings not only clear economic benefits but social benefits as well, enabling children to grow up to be more successful than they might otherwise be ... To those who argue that this goal [promoting marriage] is old-fashioned or inconsistent with modern culture, we argue that modern culture is inconsistent with the needs of children.”

If you require more evidence I will be happy to supply it.

My aim here is not to offend or judge or criticise people in other family forms. Genuinely, I wish them the best, and I hope that all goes well with them and their children.

But we have to face the facts - children matter and fertility treatment isn't just about the adults.

Benincasa

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Who wants him out of business? People are rightly concerned with equal access to healthcare, particularly when that healthcare is in any way state funded.

I'm not aware that there is any State funding involved in this. It is a private medical clinic.

kelle

If he refuses to treat patients who are unmarried because he has strong Catholic beliefs, then surely he shouldn't be carrying out IVF in the first place, because the Catholic church teaches that it is morally unacceptable!

Neyite

kelle wrote: »

If he refuses to treat patients who are unmarried because he has strong Catholic beliefs, then surely he shouldn't be carrying out IVF in the first place, because the Catholic church teaches that it is morally unacceptable!

the type of fertility treatment is not IVF, it is a method that is approved by the Catholic Church.

there are many instances that medical professionals can opt out of providing procedures contradictory to their faith - 2 examples in the UK:

nurses have been able to opt out of assisting on terminations due to their faith,
the rules on short sleeves scrubs only have been modified to permit muslims wear long sleeves to protect modesty (disposable sleeves are available as a result of MRSA transfer on long sleeves)

i dont see a problem if he declined to treat due to his beliefs (which i dont agree with btw) they should just go to another doc for the procedure.

chocgirl

I don't think it's necessarily just a religious issue. I don't know the exact ins and outs of the case but a lot of people would feel that ideally children should be raised by married couples. I'm not in any way religious and I would feel the same simply because the children of married couples fare better in life statistically.

Jinxi

Beliving in equailty means beleiving in ones right to practice their religious beleifs.
Wheter you agree with the doctors sentiments or not, he has a right to practice his beleifs as long as they do not put his patients lives in danger.

He is not the only doctor in Galway offering fertility treatments. The perspective clients should have just chosen another doctor.

I have a problem with peoples livlihoods being damaged by friviolus lawsuits that media jump on because it sells papers.

I would personally NOT pick that doctor because his beleifs are opposed to my own(and because I am a single person who would use fertility treatments if I needed them), just as I wouldn't choose a mechanic for my car if they hadn't a good reputation. I wouldn't take him to court if he refused to fix my car because he didn't deal with "chevrolets".

When did Irish people start acting in the litigious ways that make me take the p*ss out of the USA. Use a bit of common sense.