Another Doctor Please

Ickle Magoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you are not comfortable with a doctor for any reason you get a new one. The doctors receptionist is not paid to get angry at you for this.

I agree with both those points - where it all gets a bit hysterical and OTT is storming out of the room and demanding a change of doctor on the spot for an illness (I'm presuming?) whose successful diagnosis/treatment is not dependent on the doctors personal beliefs or of such urgency that a doctor who had less strongly held religious beliefs had to be summoned on the spot - rather than just changing doctor after the appointment.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you dodge the point. It has nothing to do with bigotry.

The point is that visiting a doctor is a deeply emotional thing. You hand yourself over in total trust to the doctor. There are many things that make people feel uncomfortable with a doctor. And they vary from person to person. What it is for you will not be what it is for me most likely. These reasons vary and no it is not sexist to want a male doctor only. It is not racist to want a black doctor only. It is not bigoted to want an atheist doctor. It is not ageist to want a doctor older than you. One merely seeks the doctor one feels most at ease with for whatever reason.

So if you feel uncomfortable with a doctor, for any reason, you change doctor. Simple as that. It is not up to a receptionist to judge you for it, or get angry, or call you ridiculous, or a bigot or anything. It simply is not their business.

You can avoid that point all you want by hiding behind the word "bigot" to make yourself feel better than the OP, but the point remains unchallenged and true. If you are not comfortable with a doctor for any reason you get a new one. The doctors receptionist is not paid to get angry at you for this.

Those things are indeed racist, sexist and bigotted. If you are uncomfortable with someone because they are black and no other reason then you're a racist. Same goes for all those other things. Get a new doctor all you want, getting a new one because of some ignorant prejudice is morally repugnant, by anyone's standards.

So, regardless of whether or not changing doctor's because you are uncomfortable is wrong or right, changing doctors because of some racist idea is racist. I'm saying that to be a racist or a bigot is wrong. What you are doing is trying to say that since it's allowed to change your doctor for any reason, then there is nothing wrong with changing your doctor. As I pointed out in my first post I'm not questioning whether "changing your doctor because you're uncomfortable is wrong", but simply saying that being a bigot or a racist is wrong.

I'm not going to engage any further arguments like "changing doctors for no reason other than you don't want a black doctor is not racist or wrong in anyway". Have fun making them though, as I pointed out it is a telling indicator as to what is really at the heart of this new "secularism".

Galvasean

raah! wrote: »

it is a telling indicator as to what is really at the heart of this new "secularism".

Nice leap there :rolleyes:

raah!

Well you know that is a rather big leap. I was going to say "the new secularism of the likes of you" or "of the OP and yourself" , but I thought that would be rather too personal. So I instead added the qualifying "new", which was a reference to that all too apparent animosity of certain contemporary authors of popular polemics.

Secularism was put in commas here because as I've already pointed out in the thread, some people do not have a proper conception of what secularism is, or do, but use this as a front for more nefarious ends.

Galvasean

That's fair enough raah!, however I do relate somewhat to nozzferrahhtoo's point on people having a right to avoid a doctor they feel uncomfortable with for whatever irrational reason they happen to have, ie: that tehy shouldn't be forced to 'suck it up' and attend a doctor they feel uncomfortable with.
Take me for example, if I had a problem with my man bits and needed to visit a doc I would rather visit a male one than female one. Not that I think a female doctor would not be able to diagnose me properly, but just that I feel I could relate to and explain such an issue to a male doctor more easily in such a situation. Silly and irrational I know, but that's just me.

raah!

Yeah I agree with that. What you were doing was not irrational at all. You gave a sufficient ration there when you said you are more comfortable using the common language which a man would be more easily able to understand because he is a man. The female doctor could be just as good a doctor, but there are certain phrases and experiences which undeniably give the man an advantage in that situation.

If, however, you were 'just uncomfortable' with the idea that the person treating you was a woman, and you'd rather have a man, then this might suggest some prejudice on your part. If you were 'just uncomfortable' with a black doctor because he was black, then there would definitely be something wrong with how you view black people. Likewise if you were 'just uncomfortable' with an old person, then there's something wrong with how you view old people. And as I've said in my post, if it's a catholic doctor treating your child on some matter upon which her catholic doctrine does not impinge, then you are 'just uncomfortable' with the fact that the woman is a catholic, and therefore have again something wrong (morally and otherwise) with how you view Catholics.

I think that even these people with these predjudices should of course be allowed to switch doctors, but there is of course something wrong with them. Morally wrong. And from a moral, rather than a pedantic bureaucratic viewpoint, I would say those people were far more out of line than the receptionist who just tries to help the bigot by saying "you're being silly".

So again, I am not, and have not (despite recent works of sophistry attempting to caste my posts as such) been trying to say that changing your doctor if you are uncomfortable is wrong. But that if certain people make you uncomfortable for no reason, then there is some moral failing down the line somewhere.

For example, I'm not saying that an old lady who is terrified of black people should have to go to a black doctor. She has the right to change doctors. But is she bigoted ignorant and wrong in many ways? Yes.

So in this thread, it was my attention to draw attention to these underlying causes of discomfort, in the hopes that these purveyors of equality and justice might turn their view on themselves.

Zombrex

Winty wrote: »

You like so many others are missing the point

I was not in the waiting room but at her desk when the plaque came into view. I did not know she was a fundamentalist catholic when I booked, I was only aware while at her desk.

Should the surgery have told me when booking I would have asked for another doctor

Did you ask for this doctor? If not then you take the doctor you are given. It is your job to educate yourself to the individual doctors, not the surgery's job to inform you about each doctor.

Again I'm not objecting to you not wanting to see this doctor. But you acted rather unreasonably by going back and asking to see another doctor. The doctors are not all just sitting around, they have other patients and other schedules. You were creating hassle and inconvenience for the receptionist and the other patients, for an issue that seems more principle than genuine concern over medical treatment.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

I'm with Winty on this one -- if the doctor felt his/her catholic beliefs required him/her to proclaim them out loud in the front office, then that should have been made clear when the appointment was being made, rather than springing it as a surprise when a patient shows up at a surgery.

I really don't see why? GPs are private practices, it is up to the patient to choose the GP for them, or take the GP given to them. You are assured a level of service that is independent to the religious beliefs of the person.

The OP's objection seems on a matter of principle than anything else. She doesn't have to see the GP. But equally she doesn't have to be accommodated by the receptionist when she has been given a slot and is now refusing it and wants a different slot.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I agree with both those points - where it all gets a bit hysterical and OTT is storming out of the room and demanding a change of doctor on the spot for an illness (I'm presuming?) whose successful diagnosis/treatment is not dependent on the doctors personal beliefs or of such urgency that a doctor who had less strongly held religious beliefs had to be summoned on the spot - rather than just changing doctor after the appointment.

Indeed which is why I am pointing out that the reasons people give for changing doctor do not have to make any sense really. They can be entirely subjective. I, for one, always want a male doctor. Regardlesss of the complaint I want diagnosed.

I have no objective reason for this and can not justify it in any way. I simply do not feel comfortable going to a female doctor. Thats all.

However in the case of the OP wanting a non religious doctor, at least some objective reasons can be given for this. We know there is a history of Religious doctors in this country refusing to perform, or even offer certain treatments on religious grounds.

Now in terms of things like the Morning After pill if you go to the doctor you may be one of the majority who knows about these treatments so will notice if the doctor does not offer them.

But we are not all so lucky. The reason we go to a doctor is we do not know all the treatments, otherwise why would we need a doctor? So how are we to know that an expressly catholic doctor really is offering us all the treatments, or even the best and most effective treatments, for our condition? As such I find it perfectly reasonable to do whatever is in my power to reduce the religiosity of my doctor.

Of course we can never be 100% sure, but that does not invalidate the attempt. I would also advise anyone with such concerns over a serious condition to ensure they go to more than 1 doctor.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Those things are indeed racist, sexist and bigotted. If you are uncomfortable with someone because they are black and no other reason then you're a racist.

Not so. Again you are ignoring the point that feelings of comfort do not have to be objective or reasonable. They just are.

For example I have never been attracted to asian women ever. Not once. That does not make me racist because sexual attraction is not simply grounded in my opinion of Asian people. I have no control over it. I can not MAKE myself feel attracted to Asian women and I can not explain my lack of attraction to them.

Nothing about that is racist, it simply is the way it is. Similarly when you are expected to be more open with a person than you are with even your closest friends and relatives... as you often are expected to be with a doctor... the things that make you uncomfortable do not have to be grounded in rationality.

I for example do not feel comfortable with doctors who do not speak with confidence. I like to feel confidence coming from, and being engendered in my by, a doctor. A shy, soft spoken, doctor would likely not engender the trust in me required. I am not "voice-ist".

All that said however, there are perfectly rational non-bigtotted reasons to reject an expressly catholic doctor given we know they have a history of refusing to administer, or even offer or mention, certain treatments. As such I would always be wondering if such a doctor really did offer me the best treatment available. Again this is not bigotry, your hide behind go word, but a perfectly rational application of the facts and the history. So not only is it not bigotted from a subjective comfort viewpoint, it is also quite a rational point to hold.

Suffice to say that whatever the reasons the receptionists job is not to admonish you for them, or even to stick the nose in at all.

ShooterSF

Zombrex wrote: »

Did you ask for this doctor? If not then you take the doctor you are given. It is your job to educate yourself to the individual doctors, not the surgery's job to inform you about each doctor.

Where should one go to educate themselves about a doctor so if the surgery doesn't inform you? Is there an online database?

pancuronium

I would really like a reply here from the OP if possible thanks in advance.

Hypothetical I know but will give me and everyone else a much better understanding of which way to proceed with this subject.............

If for Pig Iron your daughter was in need of immediate life saving surgery & the only surgeon available happened to have a plaque that you noticed saying they were a member of the Catholic Medical Association would you refuse any treatment?

recedite

drkpower wrote: »

Repeating a question i asked you earlier, are you suggesting that there should be no right of a doctor to conscientiously object to a non-emergency treatment?

The doctor has that right, the plaque indicates the intention to exercise that right, and the patient has the right to choose a different doctor.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I agree with both those points - where it all gets a bit hysterical and OTT is storming out of the room and demanding a change of doctor on the spot for an illness (I'm presuming?) whose successful diagnosis/treatment is not dependent on the doctors personal beliefs or of such urgency that a doctor who had less strongly held religious beliefs had to be summoned on the spot - rather than just changing doctor after the appointment.

Apart from the fact that there was no mention of anyone "storming out" or "being summoned", what would be the point of changing doctor after the first consultation, as opposed to before it? Is it because the meek shall inherit the earth?

raah! wrote: »

Yeah I agree with that. What you were doing was not irrational at all. You gave a sufficient ration there when you said you are more comfortable using the common language which a man would be more easily able to understand because he is a man. The female doctor could be just as good a doctor, but there are certain phrases and experiences which undeniably give the man an advantage in that situation.

If, however, you were 'just uncomfortable' with the idea that the person treating you was a woman, and you'd rather have a man, then this might suggest some prejudice on your part. If you were 'just uncomfortable' with a black doctor because he was black, then there would definitely be something wrong with how you view black people. Likewise if you were 'just uncomfortable' with an old person, then there's something wrong with how you view old people. And as I've said in my post, if it's a catholic doctor treating your child on some matter upon which her catholic doctrine does not impinge, then you are 'just uncomfortable' with the fact that the woman is a catholic, and therefore have again something wrong (morally and otherwise) with how you view Catholics.

I think that even these people with these predjudices should of course be allowed to switch doctors, but there is of course something wrong with them. Morally wrong. And from a moral, rather than a pedantic bureaucratic viewpoint, I would say those people were far more out of line than the receptionist who just tries to help the bigot by saying "you're being silly".

So again, I am not, and have not (despite recent works of sophistry attempting to caste my posts as such) been trying to say that changing your doctor if you are uncomfortable is wrong. But that if certain people make you uncomfortable for no reason, then there is some moral failing down the line somewhere.

For example, I'm not saying that an old lady who is terrified of black people should have to go to a black doctor. She has the right to change doctors. But is she bigoted ignorant and wrong in many ways? Yes.

So in this thread, it was my attention to draw attention to these underlying causes of discomfort, in the hopes that these purveyors of equality and justice might turn their view on themselves.

Get down off your pedestal and read the reply which is;

pH wrote: »

Posters here are (deliberately?) confusing two issues, one being the fact that a doctor in a (public) health service is religious themselves, the second how they treat you and the services they provide are based on that religion.

I haven't seen anyone here objecting to the fact that Catholics and Muslims are doctors in the NHS. This isn't about a doctor being a Catholic, it's not really even about finding out that your doctor is a Catholic - it's about the plaque, which let's not kid ourselves about it, is a way of saying that the treatment you're going to receive has been filtered through the Catholic faith.

ShooterSF

pancuronium wrote: »

I would really like a reply here from the OP if possible thanks in advance.

Hypothetical I know but will give me and everyone else a much better understanding of which way to proceed with this subject.............

If for Pig Iron your daughter was in need of immediate life saving surgery & the only surgeon available happened to have a plaque that you noticed saying they were a member of the Catholic Medical Association would you refuse any treatment?

Not to stand on the OPs toes but so far she has shown a desire to get what she feels is the best treatment for her and her family and has said she feels advertising catholic doctor < other doctors. What you are essentially asking is does she rate "no doctor" above advertising catholic doctor too. I would be shocked if she said yes, would you agree?

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

You are assured a level of service that is independent to the religious beliefs of the person.

Yes, that's what one would like to assume.

But the point I was making is that the most likely reason to advertize religious beliefs is to indicate that the beliefs would influence the medical care on offer. There could have been other reasons, but I think that's the most likely.

Ickle Magoo

recedite wrote: »

Apart from the fact that there was no mention of anyone "storming out" or "being summoned", what would be the point of changing doctor after the first consultation, as opposed to before it? Is it because the meek shall inherit the earth?

No it's because demanding a different doctor when you've a minor ailment due to that doctors religious beliefs and hypothetical reactions to requests for treatments that have no relevance to your appointment that day is just ludicrous behaviour.

If the OP went to the doctors for the MAP then I can absolutely understand why they would want another doctor - and in that scenario I think they'd be completely justified in asking for another doctor then and there - however, taking your kid in to have their snuffy nose checked or whatever & then presuming the surgery has responsibility to juggle patients and slots to appease your irrational prejudices is another kettle of fish entirely.

Perhaps the OP can tell us what treatments or diagnosis the GP with the plaque would have offered to them that visit, that they would have found so objectionable?

oldrnwisr

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No it's because demanding a different doctor when you've a minor ailment due to that doctors religious beliefs and hypothetical reactions to requests for treatments that have no relevance to your appointment that day is just ludicrous behaviour.

If the OP went to the doctors for the MAP then I can absolutely understand why they would want another doctor - and in that scenario I think they'd be completely justified in asking for another doctor then and there - however, taking your kid in to have their snuffy nose checked or whatever & then presuming the surgery has responsibility to juggle patients and slots to appease your irrational prejudices is another kettle of fish entirely.

Perhaps the OP can tell us what treatments or diagnosis the GP with the plaque would have offered to them that visit, that they would have found so objectionable?

I respectfully disagree.

The issue here is not about the doctor's beliefs in and of themselves but how those beliefs compromise her ability to act in accordance with the best practice of her profession.

There was a case some time ago about an astronomy lecturer who sued the University of Kentucky for not hiring him. Readers of Pharyngula will probably be familiar with the name Martin Gaskell. The point that PZ made was that in not hiring Gaskell, the university did not consider his religion alone (as Gaskell claimed) but rather the impact that his religion had on his job as a scientist and a communicator of science.

In this case, a doctor who has a plaque declaring themselves to be a member of the Catholic Medical Association. Given the ethical articles listed on the website, it is safe to conclude that at least in the areas of contraception, abortion, MAP, euthanasia and efficacy of prayer that this doctor will adhere to church teaching and not sound science when making decisions which affect patient treatment. IMHO this attitude damages her credibility as a doctor beyond repair and I too would have asked for a new doctor just as if they had a Discovery Institute sign on their desk.

Edit: Also towing the Vatican line when it comes to medical issues should in any case cause alarm bells to ring especially after they've been caught lying to the public:

Vatican: Condoms don't stop Aids

Tim Robbins

No out of order in the slightest.

People generally pick Dr's based on how well they can relate to them and how much confidence they have in them. You're just been more forthright about it.

Ickle Magoo

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

The issue here is not about the doctor's beliefs in and of themselves but how those beliefs compromise her ability to act in accordance with the best practice of her profession.

Which is why for anything where the Dr's beliefs can compromise treatment I've already stated the OP would be well within their rights to request another GP then and there - I'm awaiting the OP's clarification as to whether the visit was regarding contraception, abortion, MAP or euthanasia...I suspect not.

If, however, the visit was regarding some minor ailment where the religious beliefs of the GP hold absolutely no relevance whatsoever, then I think the OP's reaction was completely over the top. I have two kids, I call the doctors and try to get them a slot asap, we often get a locum or another GP rather than our own - as long as it's just a case of writing a prescription for antibiotics or whatever then I think it's a case of taking the doctor you are given or ensuring before you go in that you have made it clear you have s very specific preferences for doctors regardless of how basic the nature of your visit.

Refusing to see a doctor for no other reason that they are religious - despite that religiosity not affecting the quality or manner of treatment at that visit is crazy, absolutely crazy. I can completely understand and I wouldn't have a doctor that I thought would be unable to give the best treatment and medical advice possible due to their religious beliefs as my family GP - but would I refuse to see such a doctor on a once off, with a basic ailment of which their religion is completely irrelevant...no. Making it into an issue or inferring the doctor is incapable of giving ANY medical treatment or advice based on their religiosity is what is ridiculous.

oldrnwisr

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Which is why for anything where the Dr's beliefs can compromise treatment I've already stated the OP would be well within their rights to request another GP then and there - I'm awaiting the OP's clarification as to whether the visit was regarding contraception, abortion, MAP or euthanasia...I suspect not.

If, however, the visit was regarding some minor ailment where the religious beliefs of the GP hold absolutely no relevance whatsoever, then I think the OP's reaction was completely over the top. I have two kids, I call the doctors and try to get them a slot asap, we often get a locum or another GP rather than our own - as long as it's just a case of writing a prescription for antibiotics or whatever then I think it's a case of taking the doctor you are given or ensuring before you go in that you have made it clear you have s very specific preferences for doctors regardless of how basic the nature of your visit.

Refusing to see a doctor for no other reason that they are religious - despite that religiosity not affecting the quality or manner of treatment at that visit is crazy, absolutely crazy. I can completely understand and I wouldn't have a doctor that I thought would be unable to give the best treatment and medical advice possible due to their religious beliefs as my family GP - but would I refuse to see such a doctor on a once off, with a basic ailment of which their religion is completely irrelevant...no. Making it into an issue or inferring the doctor is incapable of giving ANY medical treatment or advice based on their religiosity is what is ridiculous.

I agree that the doctor's position on treating some minor ailment like a scraped knee or a flu may not specifically be compromised by her religious beliefs but I wasn't talking about minor ailments, I was talking about her credibility as a whole.

The number of areas where this doctor's judgement is compromised may seem limited now but it is growing by the day. The Vatican has already expressed opposition to the HPV vaccine as well as other vaccines (e.g. rubella) not to mention sex education in schools. Their opposition to eSC research has implications for a wide range of disease treatments including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

Let me put this another way, if you went to a doctor who recommended leeches for treatment of 90% of diseases would you still be OK with seeing that doctor for treatment of the other 10%?

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not so. Again you are ignoring the point that feelings of comfort do not have to be objective or reasonable. They just are.

For example I have never been attracted to asian women ever. Not once. That does not make me racist because sexual attraction is not simply grounded in my opinion of Asian people. I have no control over it. I can not MAKE myself feel attracted to Asian women and I can not explain my lack of attraction to them.

Nothing about that is racist, it simply is the way it is. Similarly when you are expected to be more open with a person than you are with even your closest friends and relatives... as you often are expected to be with a doctor... the things that make you uncomfortable do not have to be grounded in rationality.

I addressed this "it's subjective so it's ok" in every single post. You really are contradicting yourself a bit, first I am not adressing the fact that changing a doctor when you are uncomfortable is fine. When I respond to this and say that changing for some irrational discomfort with a certain class of people is what is wrong, you respond saying I haven't replied to exactly what my last post was all about.

If you think that all racism/predjudice has to be rooted in reason then you are wrong. The old woman who is terrified of black people could simply be afraid of the colour. This doesn't make her any less wrong. Whether or not you can call her a racist is irrelevent, it's morally wrong.

Whatever you want to call it, being uncomfortable with a certain class of people, whether you think you have reasons or not, is wrong. The old lady is morally wrong to be uncomfortable with black people. Just as a person who just irrationally hates chinese people is wrong.

As to saying that there are now reasons to not want a catholic doctor (which is very much arguing along a different stream from your original points), all of this has been addressed already in the thread.

@Recidite, perhaps you should read my posts before you make such suggestions. I would particularly reccomend the one which explicitly replies to that.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

I addressed this "it's subjective so it's ok" in every single post.

You are not addressing it, you are ignoring it and simply hiding behind the word "bigotry", the over used go to word for people without a point to make, but a desperation to make one.

I am simply pointing out to you that the factors that make us feel comfortable with a person.... especially someone we are required to be more open with than we often are with anyone else.... do not have to be rational. It is not bigoted to simply not feel comfortable in that scenario with someone of a certain sex, age, race, religion or anything. This is not bigotry, no matter how desperately you want it to be.

raah! wrote: »

As to saying that there are now reasons to not want a catholic doctor (which is very much arguing along a different stream from your original points), all of this has been addressed already in the thread.

Yes it is a second stream of reasoning and one worth mentioning in parallel to the first. I do not mean to offer it as a replacement to what I am saying already, or as a tangent or subject change, but as a perfectly valid second stream of conversation worth considering. If you feel some aspect of your doctor risks preventing him from offering you what you want, then you are perfectly within your rights, morally and otherwise, to select another one. Being afraid a doctors religion might affect his work is not the same as being bigotted against people of that religion.

I like pork, so I would not go to a Muslim Butcher. Thats not bigotted either, it is just me recognising he might not perform the service I require.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are not addressing it, you are ignoring it and simply hiding behind the word "bigotry", the over used go to word for people without a point to make, but a desperation to make one.

I am simply pointing out to you that the factors that make us feel comfortable with a person.... especially someone we are required to be more open with than we often are with anyone else.... do not have to be rational. It is not bigoted to simply not feel comfortable in that scenario with someone of a certain sex, age, race, religion or anything. This is not bigotry, no matter how desperately you want it to be.

Sigh, I'm not interested in word games. Whatever it is it's wrong. It's wrong to feel uncomfortable with black people. It's bigoted to hold certain immutable views about catholics without reason to do so. It is the very irrationality of those views about catholics that makes them bigotry. Views like "all black people are not good doctors" is bigoted and racist. That is what those words mean. If you'd note my post I said that it is not so much the discomfort that is wrong, but somewhere down the line in the cause of those discomforts.

If a person is 'just uncomfortable' with black people. Then there is still something wrong.

Yes it is a second stream of reasoning and one worth mentioning in parallel. If you feel some aspect of your doctor risks preventing him from offering you what you want, then you are perfectly within your rights, morally and otherwise, to select another one.

And if you "feel" this for no reason other than the social class of which the doctor is a part, then you are, by definition of the word bigot, a bigot. That's what the word means. Get over it.

So, if you think that the receptionist in saying to the OP that "you're being silly" in an attempt to allay her fears over the catholic doctor, is more wrong than the op, with her irrational distrust of catholics in matters in which she has no reason to distrust them (despite obviously purporting to have such reasons in the thread) then all those things I said when I quoted your first post are true.

I like pork, so I would not go to a Muslim Butcher. Thats not bigotted either, it is just me recognising he might not perform the service I require.

You're getting very confused now. This would be a reason, a non bigotted reason to not go to a muslim butcher. What would be more similar to your line of argument in this thread would be :

I don't like muslims for some reason, or perhaps no reason (this is one of the things that makes it o k), also going to the butcher is very important to me, so I should pick one that I am comfortable with. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with a muslim.


Also, if you are going to respond to my posts by quoting, do not leave out massive chunks of them to facilitate yourself repeating points that have been addressed. That's not a very honest way to go about your business.

Also remember that when I, in my post, choose to raise a certain issue, saying that I didn't argue against a certain other point is really a pointless thing to do. For example where you say that "you never refuted the fact that people have to right to select a doctor with whom they are comfortable". I never mentioned that, and this is simply you trying to force in the "I didn't say that/strawman" line of reasoning since you have no responses to the actual arguments.

And just to summarise, I've said from post one that feeling irrationally uncomfortable with a certian class of people was wrong. You've done little other than tell me that the feelings of discomfort are not rational. And then say that I haven't addressed that they are not rational. If your next post does not contain anything more substantive than the same repeated non-arguments, then I'll take it that my earlier posts are a sufficient response to it.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Sigh, I'm not interested in word games.

Then stop hiding behind the catch all word "bigotry" as if using it makes a point where otherwise you have none.

The fact remains that we have no control over what makes us feel comfortable with a person, especially one whom we have to be as open with as we are with our doctors. The mission for all of us therefore is to find one that we are comfortable with, and no receptionist has the right to get angered as we do so. I can only imagine either the OPs story is untrue, or the doctor in question needs to be informed of the behavior of the receptionist who in my opinion will likely be reprimanded or let go for such a breach of decorum.

raah! wrote: »

You're getting very confused now. This would be a reason, a non bigotted reason to not go to a muslim butcher. What would be more similar to your line of argument in this thread would be

Your confusion is not mine. Do not mistake it as such. I am perfectly aware of what my point is, even if you are not yet. My point is that if something about a person makes me doubt they will perform the job I am paying them to do, then I will seek someone else. That is all my point is, regardless of what you want to change it into.

So if I know that the Muslim religion stops a Muslim from performing some of the services I require from a butcher I will not go to a Muslim Butcher.

If I know that the Catholic Religion stops a Catholic from performing some of the services I require from a doctor I will not go to a Catholic Doctor.

I see nothing wrong with that.

raah! wrote: »

do not leave out massive chunks of them

You worry about how you format your posts. I will worry about how I format mine. For me I simply quote just enough of another users text so that the user knows the rough area I am replying to. You know what you wrote so you do not need to read it all again, so I therefore only quote enough so you know generally where my reply is directed.

However I will make a deal with you. Just as soon as I get the memo from someone in authority that informs me that your opinion on post formatting is one I have to pander to, I will instantly change my ways. Until that time however your request has been read, considered, denied and dismissed. Thanks for your input.

raah! wrote: »

And just to summarise, I've said from post one that feeling irrationally uncomfortable with a certian class of people was wrong. You've done little other than tell me that the feelings of discomfort are not rational.

My main point is that wrong or not the argument is not even Applicable, because we need to find someone we can be entirely open with in a doctor and regardless of our reasons why, or our basis for them, we should not attend a doctor with whom we do not feel such. It does not help you. It does not help the doctor. No one wins if you are not entirely at ease and comfortable with your doctor.

And remember not being entirely comfortable with him is not the same as being "Uncomfortable" with him either. Thats where much of your error stems from. I am very comfortable with many of my friends but I would not be as open with them as I am required to be with my doctor on certain topics. So the aim here is not just to be comfortable with a doctor, but to be more comfortable with him or her than you are with many people in your life.

Not attaining that advanced level of comfort does not automatically mean you are "un"comfortable with the doctor either. You could be JUST as comfortable with him or her as you are with your best friend and that might not be enough.

raah!

So guess you have opted for selective quoting and repitition.

My main point is that wrong or not the argument is not even Applicable, because we need to find someone we can be entirely open with in a doctor and regardless of our reasons why, or our basis for them, we should not attend a doctor with whom we do not feel such. It does not help you. It does not help the doctor. No one wins if you are not entirely at ease and comfortable with your doctor.

And again, this was not something I was ever interested in addressing. The op asked if she was wrong in doing what she did. I told her she was, wrong and bigoted.

Your post, amongst other empty phrases like "it's ok to be uncomfortable" suggested that "it's ok to be uncomfortable with someone because they are a catholic" or "it's ok to be uncomfortable with someone because they are black". It was this that I addressed, and this that you still have not responded to.

Responding to incoherent sentence fragments really does make it appear to some people that you are actually engaging with the points presented. It saddens me that such people and sophistry are so common.

eyescreamcone

The Doctor provides a service - you have a choice whether to avail of this service or not, and pay accordingly.
Why is the doctor advertising his religious-ness though???
Is it to seem cool with the religious crowd and get more business???

I think that I'd rather see his medical qualifications hanging on his wall than any sign of his religion-osity!

The customer should be free to choose another doctor for any reason.

(I know someone who won't use a dentist who has a banger of a car...
Crap car possibly equals poor earnings, possibly equals low customer popularity, possibly equals poor quality dentistry)

One of those reasons could well be that they don't want a doctor that brings his religion to work with him.

They then take their business elsewhere.
What's the problem???

Let the service provider advertise and let the customers decide whether to avail of his service.

Zombrex

ShooterSF wrote: »

Where should one go to educate themselves about a doctor so if the surgery doesn't inform you? Is there an online database?

Websites, referrals etc Same way you have always researched GPs.

Imagine the GP was terrible, or a raging racist. Would you expect the receptionist to inform you of that?

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

So guess you have opted for selective quoting and repitition.

I have explained my quoting methodology. As for repetition you can expect me to keep saying essentially the same things as long as you keep making the same errors. However given you claimed you would not reply again unless there was good reason to in my reply.... clearly there was a lot more than repetition in my post in your opinion. So you contradict yourself here or do you deny saying "If your next post does not contain anything more substantive than the same repeated non-arguments, then I'll take it that my earlier posts are a sufficient response to it."

raah! wrote: »

And again, this was not something I was ever interested in addressing. The op asked if she was wrong in doing what she did. I told her she was, wrong and bigoted.

I am aware of what you told the OP, and I am explaining why you are wrong to anyone who may be interested. The point being that no one should have to justify why they are not capable of reaching the level of comfort that is required when visiting a doctor. The second point being that parallel to this there are perfectly rational reasons for being unsure that a catholic doctor will perform the job you wish them to and such fears are sufficient to wish to have another doctor.

XxMCRxBabyxX

There seems to be a lot of presumptions being made by the OP and others here.
Just because the Dr displayed her religion does not automatically mean that she followed every single RCC rule. She could well be completely in favour of allowing contraception, abortions, stem cell research. You can't prove that she isn't because of a plaque.

All she did was show her membership of an organisation, albeit a religious one. She did not have any signs saying I will not do this, I will not do that. She has a right to join that organisation and display it if she so chooses.

Most importantly, to doubt her intelligence because of her beliefs is completely discriminatory. The woman has spent years studying medicine. She obviously has plenty of intelligence and is also obviously an advocate of science or she could could not work in the field that she is in. To presume otherwise is ridiculous.

The OP should simply have politely voiced their objections to the Dr, explained that it was probably better that they see another doctor, and not have caused such a fuss.

I am an agnostic but tbh I wouldn't want to be a Catholic or an athiest. All I seem to see is each side trying to shove their beliefs down the others throats. In fact at this stage Athiests seem worse than Catholics for doing that!

nozzferrahhtoo

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Just because the Dr displayed her religion does not automatically mean that she followed every single RCC rule.

Of course not, but how do we know which ones "she" does or does not?

The reason we go to a doctor is because they know the diagnosis and treatments better than we do. If a doctor was witholding treatment or options because of religion we might not know it.

Some withold the pill. Now most people know of the morning after pill so they would know their doctor is witholding that option. However this may not always be true and if you go to a doctor and they say "here are options 1, 2, and 3" how are you to know they are holding back option 4?

The only way to be sure, when you think your case is serious, is to do your best to avoid doctors you feel may be biased in such a way... while also seeking multiple opinions. Take both of those steps and you are somewhat safer as the chances of finding 2 or 3 doctors who all happen to be biased against the one thing are slim.

But at the end of the day when I see such a plaque I would be left thinking "Was that really the current most modern best treatment I just got... or was there something that persons religion prevented them from telling me / offering me".

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

She has a right to join that organisation and display it if she so chooses.

I think it very important to point out again, which I did with my first post in this thread, that there is pretty much nobody suggesting otherwise. The OP merely wanted a different doctor. No one is here claiming that the doctor has no right to have a religion, to join a religion organisation, or to advertise such. That simply is not in question as far as I see and the people who are mentioning it are in danger of missing the conversation entirely.

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

The OP should simply have politely voiced their objections to the Dr, explained that it was probably better that they see another doctor, and not have caused such a fuss.

Have I missed something or is that not essentially what DID happen? The patient asked for another doctor. It was the receptionist that demanded an explanation and then got uppity when they did not like the explanation offered.

drkpower

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Let me put this another way, if you went to a doctor who recommended leeches for treatment of 90% of diseases would you still be OK with seeing that doctor for treatment of the other 10%?

That analogy is pretty poor to this case.

Of course, a devoutly religious doctor can provide perfectly proper treatment and their religosity will not in any way influence their treatment choices in the vast majority of cases.

That is why Ickle is right to question the OP as to the purpose of this consltation. If it was for an indication in which religosity could play a role, then the OP was right. If the OP was looking for a long term GP for himself/his daughter, then he was also right. However, if it was for a sole isolated indication where religosity is not involved, then the OP was engaging in a little bit of childish attention-seeking.

Ickle Magoo

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Let me put this another way, if you went to a doctor who recommended leeches for treatment of 90% of diseases would you still be OK with seeing that doctor for treatment of the other 10%?

Unless you are privy to more information than I am then I wasn't aware we were discussion unusual treatments and I haven't said that the OP should be okay with having THAT doctor as their regular doctor. What I said was that for this particular visit, if the diagnosis/prescription has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that could possibly be compromised by religious views, then refusing to be seen by that doctor and insisting the doctors practice appease such irrational prejudice is a completely irrational over-reaction...akin to refusing to see a non-white doctor to get ear drops, or refusing on gender grounds to see a doctor about a sore throat.

oldrnwisr

drkpower wrote: »

That analogy is pretty poor to this case.

Of course, a devoutly religious doctor can provide perfectly proper treatment and their religosity will not in any way influence their treatment choices in the vast majority of cases.

That is why Ickle is right to question the OP as to the purpose of this consltation. If it was for an indication in which religosity could play a role, then the OP was right. If the OP was looking for a long term GP for himself/his daughter, then he was also right. However, if it was for a sole isolated indication where religosity is not involved, then the OP was engaging in a little bit of childish attention-seeking.

First off, we are not talking about the vast majority of cases, we are talking about a specific case. The doctor in this case has (presumably) freely elected to become a member of the Catholic Medical Association. Given that choice, it is likely that the doctor did so because the positions of the CMA reflect her own. Therefore, this doctor is putting adherence to Catholic teaching and policy ahead of whatever sound science there is.

I suspect that in the case of something like a cold or a flu where the church has no teaching regarding patient treatment that the actions of this doctor would not be different to any other. However, with reference to my analogy at what point does the number of treatments compromised by this doctor's religion compromise her entirely?

Given your login, I presume you're familiar with this:

"I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow."

Someone who refuses to issue artificial contraception, for example, could hardly be described as complying with either the letter or the spirit of the text above.


Edit: Also from the Irish Medical Council Professional Competence Guidelines

"Medical practitioners must systematically acquire, understand and demonstrate the substantial body of knowledge that is at the forefront of the field of learning in their speciality, as part of a continuum of lifelong learning. They must also search for the
best information and evidence to guide their professional practice."

oldrnwisr

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Unless you are privy to more information than I am then I wasn't aware we were discussion unusual treatments and I haven't said that the OP should be okay with having THAT doctor as their regular doctor. What I said was that for this particular visit, if the diagnosis/prescription has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that could possibly be compromised by religious views, then refusing to be seen by that doctor and insisting the doctors practice appease such irrational prejudice is a completely irrational over-reaction...akin to refusing to see a non-white doctor to get ear drops, or refusing on gender grounds to see a doctor about a sore throat.

We're not discussing unusual treatments. I was using leeches as an example of medical advice that is not in keeping with our current understanding of medicine.

Rather than repeat myself I'll direct you to my response to drkpower. However, I would just ask a question. Given your acknowledgement that where the doctor's judgement is compromised it is reasonable to ask for another doctor, where do you draw the line? How many different areas of medicine must be compromised before you determine this doctor to be of unsound judgement?

Ickle Magoo

oldrnwisr wrote: »

We're not discussing unusual treatments. I was using leeches as an example of medical advice that is not in keeping with our current understanding of medicine.

Rather than repeat myself I'll direct you to my response to drkpower. However, I would just ask a question. Given your acknowledgement that where the doctor's judgement is compromised it is reasonable to ask for another doctor, where do you draw the line? How many different areas of medicine must be compromised before you determine this doctor to be of unsound judgement?

Are you reading my posts? Where did you get the idea that I support seeing the doctor enough times to get multiple areas compromised? As I've already said....

Ickle wrote:

I can completely understand and I wouldn't have a doctor that I thought would be unable to give the best treatment and medical advice possible due to their religious beliefs as my family GP - but would I refuse to see such a doctor on a once off, with a basic ailment of which their religion is completely irrelevant...no.

If we are discussing a solitary visit to a doctors office whereby no prior request for have a particular doctor was made - and the visit was for a minor ailment in which the GP's religiosity or otherwise had absolutely no baring; then I think refusing to be seen by a particular doctor based on a plaque they display is just nuts. As I stated earlier;

Ickle wrote:

If the OP went to the doctors for the MAP then I can absolutely understand why they would want another doctor - and in that scenario I think they'd be completely justified in asking for another doctor then and there - however, taking your kid in to have their snuffy nose checked or whatever & then presuming the surgery has responsibility to juggle patients and slots to appease your irrational prejudices is another kettle of fish entirely.

What is more important, my kids sore ear or my principles? Is the doctor likely to make a decision to the detriment of my kids ear because they are catholic? I wouldn't blanket ban religious doctors any more than I'd blanket accept the opinions of any atheist in the medical fraternity. As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of basic common sense where the line is drawn.

raah!

Oldrnwiser, you miss the point of both icky drkpower and many others in the thread if you mention things like emrbyonic stem cells and the pill, as well as a long term doctor with whom you are too predjudiced to get along with.

The op over-reacted because for this once off visit there was nothing about the religiosity of the doctor that would have affected the treatment given to the child. Unless of course you think that being religious is some sort of intellectual disability, and that despite graduating from 8 years of study she is still somehow unable to administer medecines completely separate from her religion.

Could you mention something in this case which would have prevented this doctor from treating a cold? Or treating any of the minor once off visit ailments that the op was going to the doctor for?

drkpower

Oldrnwisr, you are missing the point, as others have said. I'll just focus on this point to illustrate how.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow."

Someone who refuses to issue artificial contraception, for example, could hardly be described as complying with either the letter or the spirit of the text above.


Edit: Also from the Irish Medical Council Professional Competence Guidelines

"Medical practitioners must systematically acquire, understand and demonstrate the substantial body of knowledge that is at the forefront of the field of learning in their speciality, as part of a continuum of lifelong learning. They must also search for the
best information and evidence to guide their professional practice.".

The fact that some doctors allow their own ethical views to affect what treatments they offer in no way affects their abilities to offer treatments in other spheres. The doctor who does not believe that artificial contraception is not ignoring the scientific evidence, nor are they refusing to share their knowledge per se. They simply have a different view, to you or I, of what treatment is ethical.

If they were refusing to provide artificial contraception because of a lack of medical knowledge as to what it is, or does, or because the bible tells them it does something other than what it does, then, yes, I might have concerns about even being treated by them for an ailment that is not affected by religosity. But that is not the case here. Their decision is motivated by a different ethical code, not by a failure of their medical abilities.

If I were a plastic surgeon, I would not offer breast enlargments to 18 year olds, even if it is fully legally available. That is based on my ethical code. But it wouldnt affect my surgical competence to do a skin graft.
Now, that is how to do an analogy......;)

Therefore, the decision to refuse to accept an isolated treatment, which is in no way affected by religosity, is over the top.

MrPudding

Well, I'm just going to come right out and say it... I think that where a person that feels the need to display their affiliation to a particular religious organisation in a professional environment, particularly one where there is the potential for conflict between beliefs and the treatments they may or may not offer or recommend, there is something not quite right.

I would not be particularly bothered about perhaps not receiving or being told about a particular treatment. There is enough information flying around now to ensure I would know if there was an available treatment I was not offered for some reason.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that religious people are all stupid, after all, becoming a doctor is not particularly easy. So it is not that I think they might be a rubbish doctor due to being stupid.

It is simply that I strongly believe there is a place for religion and it is not the workplace, unless of course, you are a priest or something, then I will let you away with it.

Is that bigotry? Maybe. Do I care in this particular area? No. I am not a huge fan of bigotry but the doctor patient bond is an important one and I simply don't think I would respect a person that feels the need to display religious affiliation.

MrP

Ickle Magoo

MrPudding wrote: »

Is that bigotry? Maybe. Do I care in this particular area? No. I am not a huge fan of bigotry but the doctor patient bond is an important one and I simply don't think I would respect a person that feels the need to display religious affiliation.

If you were in getting some minor treatment - would you walk out and demand reception find you a non-religious doctor though? I don't think anyone is arguing against the right to have a regular GP you trust - the issue is whether a single visit, probably requiring minimal medical intervention & almost certainly not involving any ethical considerations on the part of the doctor is really worthy of such an extreme reaction.

MrPudding

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you were in getting some minor treatment - would you walk out and demand reception find you a non-religious doctor though? I don't think anyone is arguing against the right to have a regular GP you trust - the issue is whether a single visit, probably requiring minimal medical intervention & almost certainly not involving any ethical considerations on the part of the doctor is really worthy of such an extreme reaction.

I am undecided as to whether I would walk out and "demand" another doctor, but I would not be happy dealing with that doctor for even a minor ailment.

MrP

the_syco

Winty wrote: »

Not the same thing, she has a docturine clouding her decision making

By the way, what religion are you, and why didn't you go to a doctor of your own faith?

Turtwig

Oldie (:p)

That problem you describe though isn't just relevant to Catholic doctors. It's relevant to all doctors. Imagine a situation where someone has an illness and there is a modern treatment available which is strongly supported by the medical community as whole. The thing is your GP doesn't support that medicine for whatever reason. Is that GP being unreasonable because they disagree with their peers over the treatment? A what point does consensus over rule the personal opinion? Likewise, whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic faith would see some types of contraceptives and stem cell research as murder. One of my mates apparently knows a close friend who's a GP that hard core doesn't believe in Evolution yet she's a top quality doctor no issue with contraception or the like. Yet you could say she doesn't even have a theoretical framework on how some of the medicines actually work. Doctors are humans and they have a framework of beliefs. All that matters is how they compartmentalise them.

sbsquarepants

Winty wrote: »

Not the same thing, she has a docturine clouding her decision making

It's a GP. You aren't going to be going to her for cutting edge stem cell treatments and it will be a while before your baby has any contraceptive needs, so i don't see how its an issue. You'll be going there with colds and measles and whatnot and i'm sure she can treat them without any interference whatsoever from the vatican. It's a non issue, but hey - if you aren't comfortable with her change, i personally just think it's pointless.

As for the Dr that doesn't believe in evolution. Wow!
I find that quite amazing as an anecdote in itself, but the fact is evolution has feck all to do with medicine. Medicine is only concerned with how the body works right now, whether it evolved to be that way over millions of years or was magically conjured up by some skybound wizzard doesn't really matter. It is what it is now and thats all that matters.
Still shocking though!!

The Mad Hatter

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As for the Dr that doesn't believe in evolution. Wow!
I find that quite amazing as an anecdote in itself, but the fact is evolution has feck all to do with medicine. Medicine is only concerned with how the body works right now, whether it evolved to be that way over millions of years or was magically conjured up by some skybound wizzard doesn't really matter. It is what it is now and thats all that matters.
Still shocking though!!

Well, given that medical treatments are constantly modified to deal with the evolutionary mutations of viruses, I think it matters quite a lot if a doctor believes in evolution.

Mind you, in relation to the thread as a whole, I have no issues with the religion of any doctor that treats me. Different doctors will have differing moral stances on a range of issues whether religious or not, and if I come to a point of disagreement with mine, then I'll find another doctor.

oldrnwisr

Before I get into responding to specific points, I will admit that having re-read the OP, I may have missed the point that Ickle Magoo, drkpower and raah! have made. However, before I make any further comments on that I would like to ask the OP two questions:

1. Were you aware of the ethical positions of the CMA before this incident or were you making your decision solely on the basis of their religion?

2. Was this visit intended beforehand to be the first of many or was this a visit to a doctor other than your regular GP?

Secondly, to outline my stance, had I been in the position of the OP, not knowing about the CMA beforehand, I probably would not have walked out before the doctor even came in. I would have asked her about the plaque, though, and depending on the conversation that followed, I may or may not have walked out. Regardless, I would have researched the CMA after the visit and most likely would not have returned. As MrPudding has outlined it is important to have a trust in the doctor-patient relationship and I wouldn't trust a doctor who compromises her medical treatment of patients.

raah! wrote: »

Oldrnwiser, you miss the point of both icky drkpower and many others in the thread if you mention things like emrbyonic stem cells and the pill, as well as a long term doctor with whom you are too predjudiced to get along with.

Easy with the accusations of prejudice there. I could care less what religion this doctor is. As you should have gathered from my previous posts it matters to me that a doctor makes medical decisions based on sound science and not personal beliefs. It doesn't make a difference whether this doctor is catholic or muslim or an atheist who believes in astrology.

drkpower wrote: »

If they were refusing to provide artificial contraception because of a lack of medical knowledge as to what it is, or does, or because the bible tells them it does something other than what it does, then, yes, I might have concerns about even being treated by them for an ailment that is not affected by religosity. But that is not the case here. Their decision is motivated by a different ethical code, not by a failure of their medical abilities.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't doctors supposed to adhere to a code of practice, a uniform set of ethics in line with best practice. Isn't that what these are for:

Personal beliefs and medical practice - guidance for doctors

drkpower wrote: »

If I were a plastic surgeon, I would not offer breast enlargments to 18 year olds, even if it is fully legally available. That is based on my ethical code. But it wouldnt affect my surgical competence to do a skin graft.

OK, but are there valid physiological or psychological concerns associated with a procedure like that on a patient of that age. Is there, for example research which would indicate that there may be serious side-effects associated with such a procedure? Overall, what I'm asking is that is your position based on sound medical principles and not just your own "feeling"? I'm sure that rather than outright declining to entertain such a procedure that you would talk through the risks and other factors associated with such a procedure with your patient.

Malty_T wrote: »

Oldie ()

That problem you describe though isn't just relevant to Catholic doctors. It's relevant to all doctors. Imagine a situation where someone has an illness and there is a modern treatment available which is strongly supported by the medical community as whole. The thing is your GP doesn't support that medicine for whatever reason. Is that GP being unreasonable because they disagree with their peers over the treatment? A what point does consensus over rule the personal opinion? Likewise, whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic faith would see some types of contraceptives and stem cell research as murder. One of my mates apparently knows a close friend who's a GP that hard core doesn't believe in Evolution yet she's a top quality doctor no issue with contraception or the like. Yet you could say she doesn't even have a theoretical framework on how some of the medicines actually work. Doctors are humans and they have a framework of beliefs. All that matters is how they compartmentalise them.

No I realise that it's not limited to catholics. To restate my position again though, it is important to me that a doctor practice medicine in line with the best medical knowledge available and that their decisions are not compromised by any kind of woo, be it homeopathy, religion, astrology etc.

As for the contraceptive issue, I know that some catholics consider contraception and stem cell research to be murder. However the basis for that position is a theological argument and not solid evidence. That's my issue.

drkpower

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't doctors supposed to adhere to a code of practice, a uniform set of ethics in line with best practice. Isn't that what these are for:

Personal beliefs and medical practice - guidance for doctors.

Yes, and that code of ethics includes the right of conscisntious objection. The GMC code you provides for how that right should be exercised. So, a doctor is fully entitled to circumscribe his practice according to his own ethical (religious or otherwise) code, so long as certain patient safeguards are adhered to.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, but are there valid physiological or psychological concerns associated with a procedure like that on a patient of that age. Is there, for example research which would indicate that there may be serious side-effects associated with such a procedure? Overall, what I'm asking is that is your position based on sound medical principles and not just your own "feeling"? I'm sure that rather than outright declining to entertain such a procedure that you would talk through the risks and other factors associated with such a procedure with your patient..

Im sure a doctor who is a member of the CMA will point you to sound medical research that will show you that abortion has serious psychological effects, or research that shows that an embryo/foetus is a living human. Would that legitimise their refusal in your view?

oldrnwisr

drkpower wrote: »

Yes, and that code of ethics includes the right of conscisntious objection. The GMC code you provides for how that right should be exercised. So, a doctor is fully entitled to circumscribe his practice according to his own ethical (religious or otherwise) code, so long as certain patient safeguards are adhered to.

I would point out that the right of conscientious objection is legally and ethically limited as described here:

"Where a patient who is awaiting or has undergone a termination of pregnancy needs medical care, you have no legal or ethical right to refuse to provide it on grounds of a conscientious objection to the procedure."

Thank you though for the clarification.

drkpower wrote: »

Im sure a doctor who is a member of the CMA will point you to sound medical research that will show you that abortion has serious psychological effects, or research that shows that an embryo/foetus is a living human. Would that legitimise their refusal in your view?

Firstly, a doctor who is a member of the CMA is not opposed to abortion because of medical reasons but theological ones. Secondly, the sum total of said medical research indicates what exactly?

drkpower

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Firstly, a doctor who is a member of the CMA is not opposed to abortion because of medical reasons but theological ones. Secondly, the sum total of said medical research indicates what exactly?

That is your view. And I doubt it is accurate in all cases.

Im sure a doctor who is a member of the CMA will tell you that they oppose abortion for many medical reasons (as well as for theological ones, no doubt):
- they will cite papers showing that abortion can cause significant psychological harm
- they will cite papers showing that an embryo is a unique human entity
- they will cite papers showing that a foetus at certain stages feels pain/reacts to stimuli/whatever.

All of the above will be based on proper research from well-respected medics. I am pro-choice (although i dont really like the term) and I accept that all of the above is true.

oldrnwisr

drkpower wrote: »

That is your view. And I doubt it is accurate in all cases.

It's not just my view. It's the view of the CMA.

Ethics Soundbites - Abortion

No mention is made in that article about basing their position on medical research. There is however this:

"Catholic church teaching has always been that involvement in abortion is a serious evil."

not to mention:

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produced statements on abortion which are timeless, Declaration on Procured Abortion in 1974 and Donum Vitae (Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation) in 1987. The Papal encyclical Evangelicum Vitae (The Gospel of Life) in 1995 was written by Pope John Paul II and dealt with abortion, euthanasia and the deliberate killing of innocent human beings."

So it's clear that the basis for their opposition is religious not medical.

drkpower wrote: »

Im sure a doctor who is a member of the CMA will tell you that they oppose abortion for many medical reasons (as well as for theological ones, no doubt):
- they will cite papers showing that abortion can cause significant psychological harm
- they will cite papers showing that an embryo is a unique human entity
- they will cite papers showing that a foetus at certain stages feels pain/reacts to stimuli/whatever.

All of the above will be based on proper research from well-respected medics. I am pro-choice (although i dont really like the term) and I accept that all of the above is true.

I'm sure that in any quasi-scientific field you could probably pick out several papers which contradict the consensus view. However a scientific consensus is an evaluation of the sum total of research in a particular field. So, to repeat my earlier question, what is the medical consensus regarding the medical issues that you outlined above?

drkpower

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So it's clear that the basis for their opposition is religious not medical.?

Are you suggesting that a doctor, who is religious, does not believe that from a medical perspective, an an embryo is not a unique human entity
or that a foetus at certain stages does not feel pain/react to stimuli?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm sure that in any quasi-scientific field you could probably pick out several papers which contradict the consensus view. However a scientific consensus is an evaluation of the sum total of research in a particular field. So, to repeat my earlier question, what is the medical consensus regarding the medical issues that you outlined above?

The consensus medical view IS that:
- abortion can cause significant psychological harm
- an embryo is a human entity and is presumably unique (unless it has an identical twin)
- a foetus at certain stages feels pain/reacts to stimuli.

What did you think the consesnsus medical view on these issues was?:D