Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

I was asked for my religion today..

Options
1…1819212324…41

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    drkpower wrote: »
    You asserted that a doctor's code of ethics means nothing as against the ethos of a Hospital. I have asked you to back that up. You cant even fins a doctor's code of ethics, nevermind quote it. So, have you even read a doctor's code of ethics...?:D

    Eh, the trials were stopped by the hospital based on the Catholic ethos where the doctors had legal permission. Religion overtook their wishes. Same for the butchery of women.

    You say you know the Doctors ethics but you have not even linked to a single line of said ethics yet.
    drkpower wrote: »
    You said that the Mater was 'exclusively run' by religous. Would you like to back that up in any substantive way? Because the Mater's Board of Governers is approx 90% lay, and its Board of Directors is 90% lay; just like AMNCH.

    When you get into an area where you have no knowledge whatsoever (which i suspect is a common occurence for you), you should stop digging!:D:D

    Maybe you should have the shovel sir? ;)

    The board has to enforce a Catholic ethos, its there on their website and proven in articles I have linked to. There is no Catholic ethos at AMNCH, prove where this religious ethos does exist there as you are claiming they have equal ethos to the Mater.


  • Options
    #603
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    drkpower wrote: »
    And hes wrong again......

    The right of a doctor to refuse treatment is on the basis of conscientious objection, which may be for religious, atheistic or any other reason. That right is enshrined in a doctor's code of ethics which you cant find......:D

    Hohohoho!!

    Do you find this revolting? (assuming you know the Doctors ethics and not just bs'ing)

    After all, they serve people of all religions and no religion, not just exclusive to Catholics.


  • Options
    #604
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Another medical practice where the Catholic ethos had denied treatment to patients. :mad:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0415/1224268372829.html
    IT wrote:
    A DOCTOR has been brought before the Medical Council’s fitness to practise committee and accused of professional misconduct after declining, on religious grounds, to provide infertility treatment to a couple who were not married.

    Dr Phil Boyle, who runs a fertility treatment practice in the Galway clinic, which has a Catholic ethos, declined to treat the couple due to his belief that only married people should have children.

    His case came before a fitness to practise committee inquiry last week. While many doctors’ fitness to practise cases are now held in public, his case was heard in private. Cases may be heard in private if a patient who complains about a doctor applies for the inquiry to be in private, and if the inquiry team then accedes to this request.

    Details of the case are reported in today’s issue of The Irish Catholic newspaper.

    Dr Boyle, who could not be contacted yesterday, was ultimately found not guilty of professional misconduct.

    He was accused of refusing to treat a patient and of not referring the patient to another doctor. However, the committee accepted the couple had not become his patients, and that he was not given a chance to refer them to another doctor even if he had wanted to.

    Dr Boyle offers a fertility treatment called NaPro Technology, which is fully compatible with the Catholic Church’s teaching on assisted human reproduction.

    The Iona Institute, which promotes the place of marriage and religion in society, condemned the Medical Council’s treatment of the doctor.

    It said Dr Boyle’s right to practise his profession in accordance with his conscience has not been recognised, and is not recognised in the Medical Council’s ethical guidelines.

    Dr John Murray of the Iona Institute said: “We deplore the treatment of Dr Boyle by the Medical Council. He should never have been called before its fitness to practise committee. The fact that it heard a professional misconduct charge against him is simply grotesque.”

    He added that Dr Boyle practises his profession in accordance with his Catholic convictions, and therefore he only offers his fertility treatment service to married couples. “The Medical Council must recognise his right to follow his conscience in this regard.

    “By accepting this case, the council is saying, in effect, that physicians with long accepted religious beliefs are no longer fully welcome in the Irish medical profession. This represents a direct attack on freedom of religion and conscience.”

    He added: “We believe there should be an immediate change to the ethical guidelines of the Medical Council to properly protect the right of conscientious objection, which is one of the most fundamental freedoms of any civilised society.”

    The couple who complained to the Medical Council could now take their case to the Equality Authority on the grounds that Dr Boyle is in breach of the Equal Status Act, which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of marital status. If he were found guilty and fined, the case could potentially find its way to the Supreme Court, where the constitutionality of the Equal Status Act may be tested.

    The legislation currently makes no provision for freedom of religion and conscience, both of which are recognised as rights by Article 44 of the Constitution.

    Failure at a lack of referral is a technical hitch, he refused treatment on religious grounds in the first place which is outrageous.:mad:


  • Options
    #605
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    gurramok wrote: »
    Do you find this revolting? (assuming you know the Doctors ethics and not just bs'ing)

    After all, they serve people of all religions and no religion, not just exclusive to Catholics.

    I assume they would have the same rights as to what they believe as in the same way that you have spent days having a hissy fit cos someone asked you a question. Just they wouldn't come on boards waffling on about it.


  • Options
    #606
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    I assume they would have the same rights as to what they believe as in the same way that you have spent days having a hissy fit cos someone asked you a question. Just they wouldn't come on boards waffling on about it.

    So as you cannot answer the question and condone the ethos in its implications, you would deny treatment to non-Catholics like myself. Coldhouse indeed. :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    gurramok wrote: »
    Eh, the trials were stopped by the hospital based on the Catholic ethos where the doctors had legal permission. Religion overtook their wishes. Same for the butchery of women..
    You say you know the Doctors ethics but you have not even linked to a single line of said ethics yet.

    Legal permission is different to a doctor's ethics. Fior the 6th time, please point to the specific aspect of a doctor's ethical code that is breached by not participating in this research.........
    gurramok wrote: »
    You say you know the Doctors ethics but you have not even linked to a single line of said ethics yet..

    There are a few recent threads where i linked to them and discussed them in painful detail. I'll show you thme after you have linked to the code. It is clear you dont even know where to find them, nevermind read & unsderstand them.....:D:D:D

    But, seriously, try and find them......I'll time ya,......:D Hohohoho!!
    gurramok wrote: »
    The board has to enforce a Catholic ethos, its there on their website and proven in articles I have linked to. There is no Catholic ethos at AMNCH, prove where this religious ethos does exist there as you are claiming they have equal ethos to the Mater.

    You claimed that the Mater was 'exclusively run' by religous. Which is utter nonsense, as I have demonstarated by showing that there is a >90% majority on their Board of Govs/Dirs. So you were wrong oin that one too... Hohohoho!:D


  • Options
    #608
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    gurramok wrote: »
    Do you find this revolting? (assuming you know the Doctors ethics and not just bs'ing)

    After all, they serve people of all religions and no religion, not just exclusive to Catholics.

    The right to conscientiously object revolting? No, of course not. If you knew anything of the history of medical conscientious objection, you might understand. But you dont. The right of ocnscientious objection is entirely independent of religon.

    Any luck finding the code, btw....???:D
    Hohohohoho!:D:D


  • Options
    #609
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    drkpower wrote: »
    Legal permission is different to a doctor's ethics. Fior the 6th time, please point to the specific aspect of a doctor's ethical code that is breached by not participating in this research.........

    There are a few recent threads where i linked to them and discussed them in painful detail. I'll show you thme after you have linked to the code. It is clear you dont even know where to find them, nevermind read & unsderstand them.....:D:D:D

    But, seriously, try and find them......I'll time ya,......:D Hohohoho!!

    Are you drunk? I've been accused of been incoherent but the above i've struggled to understand.

    You had said what if the doctor refused to abide by the hospitals decision, not a personal decision of the doctor in the first place. What has that got to do with "conscientious objection" based on religion is anyones guess as the decision has already been made and the doctor is piggy in the middle.
    drkpower wrote: »
    You claimed that the Mater was 'exclusively run' by religous. Which is utter nonsense, as I have demonstarated by showing that there is a >90% majority on their Board of Govs/Dirs. So you were wrong oin that one too... Hohohoho!:D

    All members of the board enforce a Catholic ethos, where are the Muslim members enforcing this?:rolleyes:

    Can you use a spell checker as there is alot of spelling mistakes and its very hard to read, thanks.
    drkpower wrote: »
    The right to conscientiously object revolting? No, of course not. If you knew anything of the history of medical conscientious objection, you might understand. But you dont. The right of ocnscientious objection is entirely independent of religon.

    Not in the articles. The conscientiously objecting was on religious grounds, nothing else.


  • Options
    #610
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    gurramok wrote: »
    So as you cannot answer the question and condone the ethos in its implications, you would deny treatment to non-Catholics like myself. Coldhouse indeed. :mad:


    Each individual is entitled to their own personal ethics, including doctors. As in any situation with a doctor, if you don't like the treatment of one, move on. I am not coldhouse, you know nothing about me so desist from that crap as well. I have a doctor who won't give me certain types of pills cos he doesn't personally agree with them. Should I throw a strop?


  • Options
    #611
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    Each individual is entitled to their own personal ethics, including doctors. As in any situation with a doctor, if you don't like the treatment of one, move on. I am not coldhouse, you know nothing about me so desist from that crap as well. I have a doctor who won't give me certain types of pills cos he doesn't personally agree with them. Should I throw a strop?

    I never accused you of been a coldhouse, its the doctors who use religious grounds to deny treatment, thats a coldhouse.

    Why should doctors use religion in the first place to deny treatment? This ain't Iran.

    Why should I who does not abide by Catholic teachings be denied treatment by public doctors based on religious grounds, their religious beliefs?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    gurramok wrote: »
    You had said what if the doctor refused to abide by the hospitals decision, not a personal decision of the doctor in the first place. What has that got to do with "conscientious objection" based on religion is anyones guess as the decision has already been made and the doctor is piggy in the middle..

    It has nothing to do with conscientious objection....! That issue only arose when you linked to the Kerry OCP case..... we were talking about this before hand.....:eek::D Are you following any of this?:D

    7th time; please point to the specific aspect of a doctor's ethical code that is breached by not participating in this research.........

    Oh and, any sign of the code.......start with google and see where it gets you......hohohohoho!!!:D
    gurramok wrote: »
    All members of the board enforce a Catholic ethos, where are the Muslim members enforcing this?:rolleyes:..

    Is it exclusively run by religous? (as you said previously); No, it isnt. You seem to be getting everything wrong on this thread....:D Teeheehee:D
    gurramok wrote: »
    Not in the articles. The conscientiously objecting was on religious grounds, nothing else.

    Doesnt matter what the grounds are; the right of conscientious objection can be invoked for all grounds, religous or not. Do you know the main reason for conscientious objection being written into ethical codes the world over. Hint: it is not religon........

    I'll time ya and see if you can get the answerr.....1.2.3.4.5. ;):D


  • Options
    #613
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    drkpower wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with conscientious objection....! That issue only arose when you linked to the Kerry OCP case..... we were talking about this before hand.....:eek::D Are you following any of this?:D

    Correct, finally you see it. It was denied on the basis of offending the Catholic ethos.
    drkpower wrote: »
    7th time; please point to the specific aspect of a doctor's ethical code that is breached by not participating in this research.........

    The decision was by the board, not by a doctor. We don't see you quoting the code. Perhaps next you are going to say that you are a surgeon:rolleyes:
    drkpower wrote: »
    Is it exclusively run by religous? (as you said previously); No, it isnt. You seem to be getting everything wrong on this thread....:D Teeheehee:D

    Yes it is. Its been proven time and time again to you but you choose to ignore it.
    drkpower wrote: »
    Doesnt matter what the grounds are; the right of conscientious objection can be invoked for all grounds, religous or not. Do you know the main reason for conscientious objection being written into ethical codes the world over. Hint: it is not religon........

    We're not discussing the morals of codes from USA to Japan, we're discussing the use of conscientious objection as an excuse by religious doctors to deny treatment.


  • Options
    #614
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    gurramok wrote: »
    I never accused you of been a coldhouse, its the doctors who use religious grounds to deny treatment, thats a coldhouse.

    Why should doctors use religion in the first place to deny treatment? This ain't Iran.

    Why should I who does not abide by Catholic teachings be denied treatment by public doctors based on religious grounds, their religious beliefs?


    So if they refuse you treatment because they don't like the tablets they could prescribe you, that would be okay? Or of they have a problem with the ethical side of the company that produces the medication, that would be okay?

    Why should they be forced to treat you on the basis of your beliefs, you have come across as the only person on here allowed beliefs


  • Options
    #615
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    So if they refuse you treatment because they don't like the tablets they could prescribe you, that would be okay? Or of they have a problem with the ethical side of the company that produces the medication, that would be okay?

    Why should they be forced to treat you on the basis of your beliefs, you have come across as the only person on here allowed beliefs

    Thats nothing to do with it. If they refuse said tablets based on religious grounds or based on they don't like the manufacturer based on religious grounds, that is not okay.

    You're twisting the question Harry. Why should I be victimised through denied medicine/surgery because said doctors base that denial on religious beliefs?


  • Options
    #616
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    gurramok wrote: »
    Correct, finally you see it. It was denied on the basis of offending the Catholic ethos..
    Lol! I never said it was! We were discussing the decision vis-a-vis the research proposal before you raised conscientious objection... Are you following any of this?
    gurramok wrote: »
    The decision was by the board, not by a doctor. We don't see you quoting the code. Perhaps next you are going to say that you are a surgeon:rolleyes:..
    Hohohohoho!!!:D The decision was by the Ethics Committee. Can you get anything right?
    gurramok wrote: »
    Yes it is. Its been proven time and time again to you but you choose to ignore it...
    You said the Mater is exclusively run by the religous yet the people who run it are 90% laypersons...... Do you understand any of this at all? Hohohohoho!!!!:D:D
    gurramok wrote: »
    We're not discussing the morals of codes from USA to Japan, we're discussing the use of conscientious objection as an excuse by religious doctors to deny treatment.
    Conscientious objection is invoked for many reasons; one of them is religon. Remove it for religon, and you must remove it for any other basis of someone's moral/ethical code.

    Btw, have you managed to find the doctor's ethical code yet? No, didnt think so.......:D Have you tried google.... Hohohohohoho


  • Options
    #617
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    gurramok wrote: »
    You're twisting the question Harry. Why should I be victimised through denied medicine/surgery because said doctors base that denial on religious beliefs?

    You can be 'victimised' (if you see it that way, but of course a permanent victim tends to see it that way) based on any belief of a doctor, religous or otherwise. Them's the rules. They are in the doctor's ethical code. Have you found them yet or is your google broken? :D:D

    Did you really start this tirade without even knowing the basics....?:D:D:eek: How embarrassing for you.... Hohohohoho!:D


  • Options
    #618
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    Just read the new posts in this thread now...

    Deary me.

    There really is no getting through to him. So who here votes that we just leave him to his own devices? No need to waste forum space going around in circles.


  • Options
    #619
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    drkpower wrote: »
    Lol! I never said it was! We were discussing the decision vis-a-vis the research proposal before you raised conscientious objection... Are you following any of this?

    Hohohohoho!!!:D The decision was by the Ethics Committee. Can you get anything right?

    Jesus. The Ethics committee is answerable to the board. You following it yes?
    This was sensationally demonstrated last year when three members of the board (sub committee) of the Mater Hospital (two of whom were religious) decided to stop trials for a cancer drug because females undergoing treatment were advised to take contraception or abstain from sex.
    drkpower wrote: »
    You said the Mater is exclusively run by the religous yet the people who run it are 90% laypersons...... Do you understand any of this at all? Hohohohoho!!!!:D:D

    Lay people are religious too. This conveniently missed your mind.:rolleyes:
    drkpower wrote: »
    Conscientious objection is invoked for many reasons; one of them is religon. Remove it for religon, and you must remove it for any other basis of someone's moral/ethical code.

    Btw, have you managed to find the doctor's ethical code yet? No, didnt think so.......:D Have you tried google.... Hohohohohoho

    So you agree I as a non-Catholic should be denied treatment as the doctor feels my treatment breaches his religious belief.:eek:
    drkpower wrote: »
    You can be 'victimised' (if you see it that way, but of course a permanent victim tends to see it that way) based on any belief of a doctor, religous or otherwise. Them's the rules. They are in the doctor's ethical code. Have you found them yet or is your google broken? :D:D

    Did you really start this tirade without even knowing the basics....?:D:D:eek: How embarrassing for you.... Hohohohoho!:D

    Awful to see you condone intolerance of patients just because they have different beliefs to you. I'd hate to be a woman looking for contraception from you if you were to become a doctor.

    And btw, Santa ain't here yet so enough of the Hohohoho, thanks.


  • Options
    #620
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    gurramok wrote: »
    Jesus. The Ethics committee is answerable to the board. You following it yes?.
    Are you sure about that.....?!!!:D Have a little think about it and then provide me with a link that backs up that assertion because i think you will find that you are wrong.
    gurramok wrote: »
    Lay people are religious too. This conveniently missed your mind.:rolleyes:
    Well you said that the 'religous' exclusively run the MAter, but dont run AMNCH. I am pretty sure you will find that the personal religous beliefs of the AMNCH Board Members broadly reflects the personal religous beliefs of the MAter Board. So whats your point? aH isee, you dont have one..... Hohohohohoho:D
    gurramok wrote: »
    So you agree I as a non-Catholic should be denied treatment as the doctor feels my treatment breaches his religious belief.:eek:
    I believe that a doctor can refuse to treat you for any reason whatsover so long as it ios not in the context of an emergency (of any kind) and he arranges a suitable referral to another doctor so that you can obtain any legal treatment.

    The ethical code essentially says this. Did you find it, by any chance....? Hahahahahahahahaha:D:D


  • Options
    #621
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    There really is no getting through to him. So who here votes that we just leave him to his own devices? No need to waste forum space going around in circles.
    Nah, this is fun; it's like holding the head of a little kid as he tries to box you but only swings at fresh air. So helpless. Just eembarrassing himself with every additional swing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    It's hilarious i'll give you that :pac:

    I'm wasting way too much time on it though :( and it's hard to resist replying.


  • Options
    #623
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭optogirl


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    It's hilarious i'll give you that :pac:

    I'm wasting way too much time on it though :( and it's hard to resist replying.


    I'm having exactly the same problem. I keep telling myself not to bother but then he comes back with something even more nonsensical and aggrevating - it's like an itch!


  • Options
    #624
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    gurramok wrote: »
    Thats nothing to do with it. If they refuse said tablets based on religious grounds or based on they don't like the manufacturer based on religious grounds, that is not okay.

    You're twisting the question Harry. Why should I be victimised through denied medicine/surgery because said doctors base that denial on religious beliefs?


    I am not twisting the question, you have actually twisted mine to bring back religion into it. It proves what we all knew, this is just an anti religious rant on your behalf. My doctor won't prescribe me anti-biotics, and not on religious grounds, he just doesn't agree with them. Should I throw a strop and say gimme them.

    Definitely out of this thread now and the sooner its shut down to stop your bile the better.


  • Options
    #625
    HarryPotter41
    Registered Users Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭HarryPotter41


    drkpower wrote: »
    Nah, this is fun; it's like holding the head of a little kid as he tries to box you but only swings at fresh air. So helpless. Just eembarrassing himself with every additional swing.


    Thats alright, but that little kid eventually realises if he kicks ya in the nads he has ya :D


  • Options
    #626
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    It proves what we all knew, this is just an anti religious rant on your behalf. My doctor won't prescribe me anti-biotics, and not on religious grounds,
    I wonder if he knows why Doctors do this. Somehow... I doubt it :D


  • Options
    #627
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    HarryPotter41 wrote: »
    Thats alright, but that little kid eventually realises if he kicks ya in the nads he has ya :D
    Yes, but that takes quite a clever kid. So I think my nads are safe with this one......;)


  • Options
    #628
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    drkpower wrote: »
    Are you sure about that.....?!!!:D Have a little think about it and then provide me with a link that backs up that assertion because i think you will find that you are wrong.

    I gave you the link. You have provided ZERO links. Hope you are following the thread!:D
    drkpower wrote: »
    Well you said that the 'religous' exclusively run the MAter, but dont run AMNCH. I am pretty sure you will find that the personal religous beliefs of the AMNCH Board Members broadly reflects the personal religous beliefs of the MAter Board.

    They don't let their beliefs dictate the running of the hospital. There is no Catholic ethos at AMNCH, of course you knew that:rolleyes:
    Harrypotter41 wrote:
    I am not twisting the question, you have actually twisted mine to bring back religion into it. It proves what we all knew, this is just an anti religious rant on your behalf. My doctor won't prescribe me anti-biotics, and not on religious grounds, he just doesn't agree with them. Should I throw a strop and say gimme them.

    Eh, those doctors use the religious grounds to deny you vital treatment at a whim just like in the Kerry example and the Galway example. I see you uphold their right just because the patient is of an inferior religion. :mad:
    drkpower wrote: »
    I believe that a doctor can refuse to treat you for any reason whatsover so long as it ios not in the context of an emergency (of any kind) and he arranges a suitable referral to another doctor so that you can obtain any legal treatment.

    Yeh sure, just like the Kerry women have to travel hundreds of miles for contraception. Lovely solution by the religious doctors.:mad:


  • Options
    #629
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I wonder if he knows why Doctors do this. Somehow... I doubt it :D

    No need to be trying to be a smart alek. You know well they can deny it on religious grounds.


  • Options
    #630
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Admittedly gurramok, I have no problem with conscientious objection, in fact both doctors, religious or not know that there are rights and wrongs in the world of medical practice. I would prefer to be treated by a doctor who knew where to draw the line in procedures on a moral level.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    gurramok wrote: »



    Eh, those doctors use the religious grounds to deny you vital treatment at a whim just like in the Kerry example and the Galway example. I see you uphold their right just because the patient is of an inferior religion. :mad:
    No, those doctors use their own code of ethics to dictate their practice. That's how Doctors operate. PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself and stop talking.

    gurramok wrote: »
    No need to be trying to be a smart alek. You know well they can deny it on religious grounds.
    LOL, i've heard it all. Doctors deny patients antibiotics on religious grounds. :pac:


    Clueless is not the word.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement