Doctor refuses to prescribe the pill on religious grounds

Morag

gaynorvader wrote: »

Does anyone know why the pill is prescription only? Does it have particularly dangerous side-effects or addictive qualities?

It is not suitable for all women, it can have very adverse affects for a small percentage ranging from constant bleeding to throwing a clot which can travel to the lungs or brains and depression and mood swings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Major_side_effects


It is far from a magic panacea, and had an enormous effect on the endocrine system.

Morag

Obliq wrote: »

Could be a bit more dangerous than aspirin! Friend of mine once inadvertently left a packet within reach of her female terrier, who trashed the lot and then didn't come into heat again for two years....(do not try this at home folks, but it does make you wonder why there's no contraceptive injection for dogs?)

There is, I know that vets in france, germany and usa who offer it usually for pedigree breeds to the line is not spoiled.

jman0war

Sounds absolutely crazy.
How is a person supposed to *know* a Doctor's superstitions?

They should be obliged to have them on public display.

eyescreamcone

jman0war wrote: »

Sounds absolutely crazy.
How is a person supposed to *know* a Doctor's superstitions?

They should be obliged to have them on public display.

Exactly!
Same for the docs who are anti-abortion and want to opt out.
Opt out before we walk in the door.
Let us know what services you will and won't offer on your website - if you're brave enough!

lazygal

I know of doctors who do advertise that they don't offer contraceptive services. Usually its on display in the waiting room.

gaynorvader

Morag wrote: »

It is not suitable for all women, it can have very adverse affects for a small percentage ranging from constant bleeding to throwing a clot which can travel to the lungs or brains and depression and mood swings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Major_side_effects


It is far from a magic panacea, and had an enormous effect on the endocrine system.

What about those allergic to penicillin? Or just about any over the counter medication, every insert I read has something along the lines of "may cause x, y, z. If you experience any of the above symptoms, please consult your doctor".

Nodin

Obliq wrote: »

Could be a bit more dangerous than aspirin! Friend of mine once inadvertently left a packet within reach of her female terrier, who trashed the lot and then didn't come into heat again for two years....(do not try this at home folks, but it does make you wonder why there's no contraceptive injection for dogs?)

....there is, afaik.

username123

lazygal wrote: »

I know of doctors who do advertise that they don't offer contraceptive services. Usually its on display in the waiting room.

Actually my doctor doesnt offer "contraceptive services" - but its only for matters like coil inserting that she refers people on, she will prescribe the pill. She says that for coil inserting, the little bar in the arm (name escapes me), she hasnt a big enough customer base to be an expert so she would rather send people to a place that does have expertise. I dont know if she charges you for the visit because the referral is just onto a family planning clinic, i.e., you could have made the appointment without her referral had you known. I suspect she doesnt. She isnt a money grabbing doctor like my last one was.

drkpower

Cabaal wrote: »

Where does the religious nonsense influencing the doctors treatments and helping of patients end though?

- What if a Jehovah's Witnesses Doctor refuses to carry out a blood transfusion.
- Muslim doctor refuses to even talk to a women patient
- A Catholic GP refuses to treat or even see a gay/lesbian/bisexual

Just for a bit of balance...:

First, it isnt a religious issue per se, the right of conscientious objection applies to anyone. For instance, take a scenario where a jehovah's witness chooses not to accept a blood transfusion and the medical team is charged with trying, probably in vein, to save their lives using alternative, and probably futile, means. Many healthcare practiitoners would find it unconscionable to provide futile care in circumstances where they could, with the flick of an intravenous catheter, save that person's life. Those healtcare practitioners are also entiled to conscientious object (assuming the patient's care can be passed safely and expeditiously into the hands of others who are willing to act).

Second, the right of conscientious objection does not apply in emergency cicumstances. So, a JW doctor could not refuse to administer a blood transfusion.

Oracle

What religion is she?

Morag

username123 wrote: »

Actually my doctor doesnt offer "contraceptive services" - but its only for matters like coil inserting that she refers people on, she will prescribe the pill. She says that for coil inserting, the little bar in the arm (name escapes me), she hasnt a big enough customer base to be an expert so she would rather send people to a place that does have expertise. I dont know if she charges you for the visit because the referral is just onto a family planning clinic, i.e., you could have made the appointment without her referral had you known. I suspect she doesnt. She isnt a money grabbing doctor like my last one was.

The implannon, IUD and IUS all required doing a course for certification to insert and remove them and there is an upkeep with re certification. If a dr has not fitted 5 - 10 in the last year then it is best to go to someone who has more experience. Far too many drs in this country seem to think that a woman has to have a child to have a ius/iud fitted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Section 10 http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Information-for-Doctors/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners.pdf

If a doctor has an objection they should give names of doctors who will do as patient wishes and not lecture, if a doctor gave me a lecture like that, after I have lifted him with a mind your own business lecture I would make a complaint of poor profesional performance to the medical council.

Obliq

username123 wrote: »

Actually my doctor doesnt offer "contraceptive services" - but its only for matters like coil inserting that she refers people on, she will prescribe the pill. She says that for coil inserting, the little bar in the arm (name escapes me), she hasnt a big enough customer base to be an expert so she would rather send people to a place that does have expertise. I dont know if she charges you for the visit because the referral is just onto a family planning clinic, i.e., you could have made the appointment without her referral had you known. I suspect she doesnt. She isnt a money grabbing doctor like my last one was.

That is completely the right thing to do, fair play that Doctor. If only the one I picked had known her limits. I once made the mistake of going to the female dr. in my local clinic and asking if she would insert a copper T, to which she said "no prob, but wouldn't you rather the Mirena coil?". I said, no, hormones never suited me, had the copper before with no trouble.
HER shaking hands and white face, and MY calming, soothing noises trying to get her out of my fanny without her puncturing my uterus and killing me....we agreed to part. I went to the family planning clinic, where they do 1000's and was told how GP's are often given weekends away to train into the Mirena, but can't deal with any other coil.

TLDR, I know, but moral is ALWAYS go to someone who has done 100's every year. REALLY. That is important.

Frito

drkpower wrote: »

a blood transfusion and the medical team is charged with trying, probably in vein to save their lives

Pardon the pun(cture)

Turtwig

Reading this thread and skimming the one the TLL and from the furore I've seen on facebook threads over this I'm really surprised at the amount of people who didn't know about doctors being allowed to object to treatments that goes against their conscience or clinic's ethos! :eek:

That said, the moral lecturing was unprofessional. However, playing the devil's advocate we've only got one side of the story. If the patient had being pushing for the pill then the doctor has every place to state his/her opinion. Even if that opinion might not be the nicest one.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Reading this thread and skimming the one the TLL and from the furore I've seen on facebook threads over this I'm really surprised at the amount of people who didn't know about doctors being allowed to object to treatments that goes against their conscience or clinic's ethos! :eek:

That said, the moral lecturing was unprofessional. However, playing the devil's advocate we've only got one side of the story. If the patient had being pushing for the pill then the doctor has every place to state his/her opinion. Even if that opinion might not be the nicest one.

I have to admit I was gobsmacked this is still happening.

Back in the 80s when I used to 'come home' for the Summer from the UK one of my sources of amusement was going into Cork pharmacies and loudly, but politely, asking for condoms. If refused (usual response) I would insist on discussing why with the pharmacist. Had some great absurd conversations:

Pharmacist: 'I don't agree with it because I am a Catholic'
Me : 'I do agree with it and I am not a Catholic - I am a customer.'

Pharm. : 'You might be able to get things like that where you are from, but not here.'
Me: 'I'm from Ballinlough [a suburb of Cork city]. Like. '

Pharm: ' As a Catholic I have no need for these kind of products.'
Me: 'As a man you have no need for any of those products on the shelf marked Feminine Hygiene either, yet here you are selling them.'

Pharm :' You need a prescription from an Irish doctor.'
Me : 'For condoms???'
Pharm: 'Yes, we here in Ireland take these things very seriously.'
Me: 'Glad to hear it. Ohh, I just remembered. Here is a prescription from my Irish doctor based here in Ireland. Can I have my condoms now please?'

Pharm : 'Are you married?'
Me : 'Well gosh, this is unexpected. We only just met and here you are making inquiries about my marital status. I should warn you - my girlfriend is a bit possessive.'

Pharm: 'What do you want them for?'
Me : ' I have to wade across a deepish body of water with a fully loaded weapon and need to protect the muzzle of my rifle from becoming water logged if I slip and submerge.'

Damn Richard Branson spoiled all my fun. :mad:

I seriously did not think that kind of bull manure was still going on 30 years later- not being a user of contraceptives since aged 16 when family GP briefly prescribed them to regulate my period so I didn't need to go play find the 'ethosless' Doctor game besides which, my family GP is firmly of the opinion that his beliefs have zero to do with his provision of health care.
And yes, he did used to give me prescriptions for condoms and then I would report back which pharmacies were obliging so he could direct people there. It wasn't all about me being obnoxious.

Kiwi in IE

Well it's nice to know that as an atheist and a nurse, I am entitled to conscientiously object and refuse to facilitate a client to use, or accompany them to the hospital chapel. Not that I ever would in a million years because I am not a pr**k, and my own beliefs have naught to do with those of my clients or my ability to act appropriately in a professional capacity.

The above scenario sounds ridiculous but I see no difference. The contraceptive pill is legal and should therefore be prescribed when it is required. Any religious objection to such treatments from medical professionals should be confined to their own personal use of them. If they cannot separate their personal beliefs from their professional duties they need to re evaluate their career choice.

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Not that I ever would in a million years because I am not a pr**k, and my own beliefs have naught to do with those of my clients or my ability to act appropriately in a professional capacity.

This. A thousand times.

ShooterSF

lazygal wrote: »

Well, this case is interesting: http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/kfkfqlcweygb/

I don't know if the couple went to the Supreme Court or not.

Would be interesting. I don't think you'd have to go to the supreme court though. The law is on their side. "Regular" court would do I assume.

(As someone who has been in the bar trade long enough to have had the equal status act thrown at him many many times)

Kiwi in IE

Any medical professional who uses 'conscientious objection' to refuse to prescribe the pill or any other form of contraception is just being a pr**k. Pure and simple!

Although I suspect that the majority who would refuse to preform an abortion fall into the same category, there is slightly more grounds for understanding there if you consider the point of view (which most of them probably don't actually hold) that they might really believe they are committing murder.

There are no grounds for any understanding of refusal to prescribe contraception. I'm not even sure what the religious rationale (oxymoron alert) is. Interfering with 'God's will'? If that's it, why is it ok to interfere with 'God's will' when it comes to prescribing heart medication? Surely if God wants someone to die of a heart condition Doctors should not interfere?

jank

That is all well and good Kiwi but you are then substituting one forced thought process of the 1950's with another forced thought process of todays progressives. People should always have freedom of conscious in a free society. What you want in effect is the state to mandate what we think and do even if it goes against what we believe. It has nothing to do with religion, it is to do living in a free society.

This issue happens the world over and is not confined to Ireland
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/8917011/GP-refuses-woman-contraceptive-pill

Any free society must make provision for conscientious objections on at least some level. The idea that what you believe about this thing called “ethics” aka “morality” is something you think about when you’re reading, blogging or going to church, but they’re a curiosity that you must set aside when you return to the real world and go to work, simply fails to grasp what morality is all about. It’s incredible that so many are actually prepared to utter glib comments like “As a doctor you really have to leave your personal beliefs at the door and treat each patient without prejudice.” This is what one of the commenters on this story had to say, and it’s a sad indictment on the skill of moral thinking that exists among those who digest news stories. On the one hand we crusade for ethical business practice: We demand that big corporations like Nike, Apple and a host of cosmetics companies change the way that they do business because we judge that what they are doing is fundamentally immoral; they should adopt standards that we think are morally right, and yet on the other we (some of us at least) decry those medical practitioners who dare to bring their moral beliefs to bear on the services that they provide. They should shut up and do what we think is right. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways. Make up your mind what sort of society you want to live in.

http://www.rightreason.org/2013/doctors-and-freedom-of-conscience/

In that case they can put it up on their waiting room walls that they don't offer it in that clinic, so they save themselves time, and they save women time and money and pointless lectures on "morality"

gaynorvader

I do agree that the doctor should be allowed refuse to treat if it conflicts with their morality. However, they should refer their patient to a doctor that will treat them and not be allowed to charge for their time. If it's a matter of life or death, that obviously changes things and they should not be allowed to practice medicine if they'd to harm because of something their patient does that they morally object to.

Jelly2

username123 wrote: »

Actually my doctor doesnt offer "contraceptive services" - but its only for matters like coil inserting that she refers people on, she will prescribe the pill. She says that for coil inserting, the little bar in the arm (name escapes me), she hasnt a big enough customer base to be an expert so she would rather send people to a place that does have expertise. I dont know if she charges you for the visit because the referral is just onto a family planning clinic, i.e., you could have made the appointment without her referral had you known. I suspect she doesnt. She isnt a money grabbing doctor like my last one was.

My doctor is similar. She didn't even do the referring to the family planning clinic, but she still charged me her full consultation fee for the five minutes that it took her to tell me that I would have to go to one.:(

Jelly2

Jelly2 wrote: »

My doctor is similar. She didn't even do the referring to the family planning clinic, but she still charged me her full consultation fee for the five minutes that it took her to tell me that I would have to go to one.:(

Should refuse to pay tbh
They refuse service, you refuse payment

Jelly2

bluewolf wrote: »

Should refuse to pay tbh
They refuse service, you refuse payment

I'm such a walkover.:o

Jelly2

Jelly2 wrote: »

I'm such a walkover.:o

Nah it's always easier to say these things behind a screen than when it's thrown at you by surprise

username123

Jelly2 wrote: »

My doctor is similar. She didn't even do the referring to the family planning clinic, but she still charged me her full consultation fee for the five minutes that it took her to tell me that I would have to go to one.:(

No, I wouldn't have paid that. That's disgraceful.

jank

bluewolf wrote: »

In that case they can put it up on their waiting room walls that they don't offer it in that clinic, so they save themselves time, and they save women time and money and pointless lectures on "morality"

Oh, I agree...

Kiwi in IE

jank wrote: »

That is all well and good Kiwi but you are then substituting one forced thought process of the 1950's with another forced thought process of todays progressives. People should always have freedom of conscious in a free society. What you want in effect is the state to mandate what we think and do even if it goes against what we believe. It has nothing to do with religion, it is to do living in a free society.

This issue happens the world over and is not confined to Ireland
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/8917011/GP-refuses-woman-contraceptive-pill



http://www.rightreason.org/2013/doctors-and-freedom-of-conscience/

I never said it only happened here Jank.

Whether or not religious medical professionals have a right to refuse to prescribe contraception does not change the fact that they are simply being pr**ks by doing so. It is a ridiculous stance to take. And I'm sure refusing gives them some misplaced feeling of misogynistic power. I am aware that they DO have the right but I am unsure if I agree with it. Conscientious objection is vitally important in certain circumstances and specific fields, such as an unethical command from a military superior. But doctors refusing to prescribe contraception are behaving in a petty, arrogant, misogynistic manner and I really don't think such traits are particularly desirable for a medical professional. Would you consider it appropriate for a nurse to refuse to contact chaplaincy services on behalf of a client, or refuse to accompany them to the hospital chapel when they couldn't go by themselves because he/she was an atheist? I wouldn't. I would think that person was being a unprofessional jerk. I see little difference.

Tiddlypeeps

jank wrote: »

That is all well and good Kiwi but you are then substituting one forced thought process of the 1950's with another forced thought process of todays progressives. People should always have freedom of conscious in a free society. What you want in effect is the state to mandate what we think and do even if it goes against what we believe. It has nothing to do with religion, it is to do living in a free society.

This issue happens the world over and is not confined to Ireland
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/8917011/GP-refuses-woman-contraceptive-pill



http://www.rightreason.org/2013/doctors-and-freedom-of-conscience/

If I decided to become an orthodox jew and I worked in a pub or restaurant where Sunday was the second busiest day of the week, should it be ok that I refuse to work on Sunday on grounds of religious belief? Some restaurants/pubs might be ok with that, but most would not and would be well within their rights to sack me.

I don't believe that is ok. I don't think anybody should be forced to do anything they don't want to. But if somebody is being paid to do a job I don't think they should have the right to refuse to do it or part of it on the grounds of religious freedom and still expect to have a job at the end of it.

jank

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I never said it only happened here Jank.

Whether or not religious medical professionals have a right to refuse to prescribe contraception does not change the fact that they are simply being pr**ks by doing so. It is a ridiculous stance to take. And I'm sure refusing gives them some misplaced feeling of misogynistic power. I am aware that they DO have the right but I am unsure if I agree with it. Conscientious objection is vitally important in certain circumstances and specific fields, such as an unethical command from a military superior. But doctors refusing to prescribe contraception are behaving in a petty, arrogant, misogynistic manner and I really don't think such traits are particularly desirable for a medical professional. Would you consider it appropriate for a nurse to refuse to contact chaplaincy services on behalf of a client, or refuse to accompany them to the hospital chapel when they couldn't go by themselves because he/she was an atheist? I wouldn't. I would think that person was being a unprofessional jerk. I see little difference.

Regardless if you think they are being pricks for doing so it is not illegal, nor should it. In their minds eye they are doing the right thing. Everyone always thinks they have morality and right on their side and think the other side are assholes for not thinking in their world view

What you are saying in other words that people who do not confirm to your world view should not be 'allowed' to practice medicine.

jank

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If I decided to become an orthodox jew and I worked in a pub or restaurant where Sunday was the second busiest day of the week, should it be ok that I refuse to work on Sunday on grounds of religious belief? Some restaurants/pubs might be ok with that, but most would not and would be well within their rights to sack me.

I don't believe that is ok. I don't think anybody should be forced to do anything they don't want to. But if somebody is being paid to do a job I don't think they should have the right to refuse to do it or part of it on the grounds of religious freedom and still expect to have a job at the end of it.

I dont see what the problem is. If they are not working Sunday they are not getting paid for that Sunday....

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

I dont see what the problem is. If they are not working Sunday they are not getting paid for that Sunday....

Well lets take a real life situation then. Up until the end of this week I have worked in a rural pub for the past two years as the other full time employee aside from the bar manager. Every Saturday one of us would take the morning shift and the other would take the night along with a part timer who only does a day or two. And then reverse the following week. Now if I found religion 6 months ago and said religion marked Saturday as a holy day and I now couldn't work it, his options would be to work every Saturday night or hire another part timer and trust two of them to run the busiest shift of the week plus give one of them access to the office and safe for change (not something pubs are fond of doing for too many people)

It's not as simple as saying you just won't get paid. I would be let go and rightly so as Id be no longer fit to do my job.

Tomk1

No faith in a demi-god, less faith in useless doctors, if you can't do the job get another profession. As another user said let the pharamacist dipense it, & at least it would save the HSE a few bob.

Kiwi in IE

jank wrote: »

Regardless if you think they are being pricks for doing so it is not illegal, nor should it. In their minds eye they are doing the right thing. Everyone always thinks they have morality and right on their side and think the other side are assholes for not thinking in their world view

What you are saying in other words that people who do not confirm to your world view should not be 'allowed' to practice medicine.

Nope! What I am saying is that medical practitioners who force their own beliefs upon their clients, allow their personal beliefs to effect treatment and disregard the world view of the people they are supposed to be treating, are unprofessional at best!

Piliger

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Nope! What I am saying is that medical practitioners who force their own beliefs upon their clients, allow their personal beliefs to effect treatment and disregard the world view of the people they are supposed to be treating, are unprofessional at best!

I agree. A doctor is incompetent and unprofessional if s/he imposes his/her own personal views on his/her patients. S/he should be struck off and told to find another profession where s/he can implement his/her views in private. S/he has no business acting as a doctor.

Dave!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wasn't aware that doctors can refuse routine interventions like the morning-after pill on a whim based on what the Pope tells them.

Some posters would have us believe that everyone knows about this, and we're ignorant morons if we do not.

Piliger

Dave! wrote: »

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wasn't aware that doctors can refuse routine interventions like the morning-after pill on a whim based on what the Pope tells them.

Some posters would have us believe that everyone knows about this, and we're ignorant morons if we do not.

I guess that women tend to keep this quite quiet out of embarrassment. It is outrageous to think that this is allowed (doctor, not woman)

Turtwig

Dave! wrote: »

Some posters would have us believe that everyone knows about this, and we're ignorant morons if we do not.

Ignorant? Yes, as that's what ignorant means: lacking awareness of something. Morons? No. Being unaware of something doesn't make you a moron. We can't know everything! Heck, thinking you can get sick from a computer virus doesn't make you a moron. Everybody generally has stupid opinions on something or other. So please, don't be under the false impression of thinking that those of us who were aware of the doctor's ability to object thought others who weren't aware were morons. I'll admit I was taken back that some regulars posting here didn't seem to know, yourself included, but I don't for one second think you're a moron for not knowing.

ferretone

kylith wrote: »

There is, for males anyway. A guy I know in the UK has his male chemically neutered because he shows his dogs but his male dog is a giant breed and his female dog is a terrier. You can imagine what'd happen if the male decided to have a go.

There is a contraceptive injection for bitches too. My MIL used to use it on all hers, but hasn't had a bitch for over a year now. Her last bitch got aggressive mammary cancer, and had to have all but the top 2 removed, really traumatic surgery.

Twas her vet in Donegal who always recommended it, as spayed bitches "always get fat and lazy" :eek: (Tell that to my skinny, high-energy, 7-yr-old, spayed Lola, by the way!) Our vet did the surgery on poor Wuschie while MIL was on holiday, as she didn't want to be blamed by the poor dog, who absolutely could never stand vets. He was convinced that the contraceptive jab was largely to blame for the cancer, and does not recommend it at all.

Anyway, sorry for the large diversion from topic, but one contributor did wonder why no contraceptive for doggies, and I think this is the main reason why reputable vets, at least, don't tend to do it.