Pure Evil

Krista - posted on 05/31/2012 ( 218 moms have responded )

12,562

16

From rawstory.com:

Doctors across the nation are now free to refuse medical care to women on the basis of their own personal beliefs. What follows is a particularly egregious application of these “religious conscience” laws, and underscores why women nationwide are standing up and fighting back:
________________________________________________
An Oklahoma mother brought her daughter to a local hospital after she was raped only to be turned away and refused help by a doctor, purportedly because the hospital lacked the staff to properly process the victim’s claims and injuries. Welcome to the reality of processing sexual assault crimes in GOP-land.

The woman and her daughter were reportedly turned away because the hospital did not have any nurses who conduct rape exams on staff. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) are specially trained professionals who deal only with the delicate process of conducting rape exams. The SANE program is coordinated through the YWCA and is a collaboration with local law enforcement, the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office and public health officials. The collaborative effort is designed to ensure evidence is properly collected and stored without re-traumatizing the victim and ensuring the most effective prosecution of the perpetrator possible.

~snip~

In this case the doctor involved refused to conduct any exam, nor would he dispense any emergency contraception. The hospital issued a statement grounding those decisions in the need to coordinate through the SANE program. It could also be that this doctor had a moral objection to treating rape victims and dispensing emergency contraception, and thanks to abusive expanses of the conscience-clause by the right, simply refused to deal with her. Either way it’s a lose-lose for rape victims who now face the prospect of looking for treatment after an assault only to be turned away because of a lack of resources or because of religious objections.
_______________________________________________

The young woman asked the doctor whether or not emergency contraceptives were available and whether the doctor was simply refusing to provide them. The nurse told her “I will not give you emergency contraceptives because it goes against my belief.” The doctor refused to help her, even though she had just been raped, and refused to find another doctor to help her.


What do you think, folks? If the medical staff had been forced to help her, would that have been a violation of their religious freedom? Or do you, like me, think that in a case like this, that they should have taken their beliefs and stuck them where the sun doesn't shine?

This conversation has been closed to further comments

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms

218 Comments

View replies by

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 06/03/2012

6,434

12

Amanda, if the doctor is more concerned with his or her rights and beliefs than the rights and well being of his or her patient then he or she should not have taken their oath to do no harm and to attend to the patient with the best of their abilities. In stead he or she should have gone and become a member of their church where their morals wouldn't have to be put into practice and possibly harm someone who doesn't share their beliefs.



The way I see it if I believed in God I would be down on my knees every night thanking Him that I live in a country where my members of provincial and national government place more vaule on the free will of others than on their own personal beliefs. They realise that they were elected to do their job not to convert the general populace to their out dated beliefs and extreme standards. Sometimes I feel as though I removed myself from the US just before the GOP started the entire country on a time warp back to the early 20th Century.

Amanda - posted on 06/03/2012

374

33

There is a reason why there are people who are SPECIALLY trained to perform rape exams. ITS CALLED PRESERVING the chain of custody where EVIDENCE is concerned. If there is any question all physical evidence improperly obtained can be thrown out and a rapist will go free..... As far as the doctor is concerned he has his rights too.... Personally I have no issue with the morning after pill and do believe it should have been given unless it could affect the rape kit then it would make sense why he didnt give it before the evidence was collected...

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 06/03/2012

6,434

12

Hello UN, the US is in violation of your declaration of Human Rights. Care to step in?

Honestly I'd sue and state that my mental, emotional and physical well being or that of my child should have trumped the health care personnel's moral dilemma. Allowing doctors and pharmacists to decide what they think is right is also a constitutional violation as it violates the separation of church and state. The Preamble says 'We the People' not 'We the States' or 'We the practitioners of a certain religion'.

Krista - posted on 06/03/2012

12,562

16

But, again, she doesn't have to go to another hospital! If she's only looking for EC, it's given, at pharmacies, without prescription. I don't know where you live that hospitals aren't short staffed, but wasn't that part of the reason they couldn't treat her? That the nurse educated to perform rape kits wasn't avsilable?

We don't know what time of day or night this happened -- it could be that the pharmacies were closed.

Besides, she went to the hospital first, which was the right thing to do. She wasn't JUST looking for EC -- she wanted a rape kit performed. But really, the hospital should be able to say, "Okay, we don't have the resources to do those here. Hospital (name) does. We're going to call ahead and let them know that you're coming, and to have everything in readiness so that you don't have to go through explaining everything again, okay? In the meantime, here's a packet of emergency contraception. You can take the first pill now, and then take the second one in 12 hours."

Wouldn't that be a lot more humane, instead of just refusing to help her at ALL?

Jodi - posted on 06/03/2012

2,694

52

"I am sorry you cower in fear of your god." I am no longer christian, I don't actually believe in that god, no need to pity me, I have found something MUCH better for myself. No fear involved.



As for being treated one of my kiddos out in the tent for rape or molestation, I would be transferred to another hospital. I looked up their actual capabilities last night, and that is not one of them. So regardless, I would be transferred to a larger hospital, over an hour away where there are multiple doctors on staff (looked those ones up too, and their policy to always have one SANE nurse on staff working.) who can help. So really, I would have to be transferred anyways, what difference does it make to me if it's because no one's qualified to "do their job", or because someone's morally against it. Besides, I wouldn't want someone morally against it working in my daughter's abused and violated private area. I want someone who is understanding of her situation, compassionate (let's face it, if you're morally against something, it's impossible to set every single feeling aside, you can say they *should*, but it's not going to happen) and give her the best treatment from the bottom of their heart because it's what's they feel, not the best treatment they can muster up because they have to.



ETA: Zoo time!!! Kiddos are absolutely CRAZY right now playing zoo in the porch! lol

Kristi - posted on 06/03/2012

1,211

4

Jodi-

I'm sorry, I thought my first comment was pretty clear that I was questioning the morals or this doctor. The only reference I made to "religion" at all was when I said I would be scared of god who demanded his people treat rape victims the way this doctor did. This is America, it is your right, as it is mine to worship and pray or no,t to any God of any affiliation of our choosing. I happen to be a Christian as well. But the God I learned about and know is loving and forgiving. I find comfort, peace and hope with Him. He is fair and just. I am sorry you cower in fear of your god. That makes me sad for you. Either way, our religious views aren't what this is about.

This doctor took an oath, to help people when the were in need of medical attention. To be clear, I am not talking about emergency surgery or amputations or gun shot wounds, just to provide the care and treatment in a comforting manner as he swore he would do. Read the Hippocratic Oath sometime. Doctor's can lose their license for violating that oath. Doctor's don't just get to pick and choose who they will help. That is morally and ethically wrong. And in this case, extremely harmful to victim's state of mind and well-being. If the doctor is going to hide behind his "religion" in order to avoid treating people he doesn't WANT to (thus, not being able to perform his job as he swore and was hired to do), he has a moral and ethical obligation to step down. Even more so in communities such as yours, because from the sounds of it, beggars can't be choosers and what if the only doctor available is this "religious" doctor and he says he doesn't treat God fearing Christians meanwhile you are standing there with one of those sweet kids out in the tent who was just molested by their teacher? Think it can't happen to you? I wouldn't take the chance if it were me... on either of those two things coming true.

So to conclude, never bashed anyone one's religion, believe in what or whoever you want. I will again defer to Kristin, as her no nonsense, straight forward comments can stand on their own and do not need repeating. I also hope you have a better understanding of my opinion. Obviously you don't have to agree, after all this is a debate, right? : )

Sarah - posted on 06/03/2012

52

20

But, again, she doesn't have to go to another hospital! If she's only looking for EC, it's given, at pharmacies, without prescription. I don't know where you live that hospitals aren't short staffed, but wasn't that part of the reason they couldn't treat her? That the nurse educated to perform rape kits wasn't avsilable?

Happy - posted on 06/02/2012

341

0

I think that a doctor should be allowed to observe the religious or moral values to dictate their practice but I also feel that those doctors should not be working in an emergent facility and only a prectice based clinic, so that IF a patient comes in that asks the doctor for care that goes against his or her beliefs, the doctor can refer the patient to another docotr or clinic, as there is plenty of time since it s not an emergency.

Krista - posted on 06/02/2012

12,562

16

There is a difference, though (a moral difference, if you will) between a hospital not being able to do something, and a hospital being ABLE to do something, but refusing to do so because they just don't want to.

The former is acceptable. I won't get a heart transplant at my little village hospital -- I'd have to be airlifted to Halifax. That's understandable.

But EC is pretty straightforward stuff. You don't need specialized equipment or even specialized training in order to administer it. Like I said, they sell it over the counter here. So there is NO reason why each and every emergency room in the country should not have some on hand, and there is NO reason why a rape victim should have to go to another hospital for it.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

"Also not feasible. Not in small hospitals. At my local hospital, we barely have enough physicians to provide 24 hour coverage as it is. So if I needed an emergency termination, they'd have to rouse another doctor out of bed and I'd have to really hope that this doctor would be okay with doing that procedure." If I needed an emergency termination, I would have to be transfered to another hospital regardless. Surgical amenities are not provided by my hospital. Stabilize and transfer, that's all they can do.

Kristi, as has been mentioned before, this isn't merely a religious debate. It's morals, the two are seperate. And I'm terrified of the Christian God (as I was taught to be through my religious schooling)...but I don't knock anyone elses beliefs...guess that makes one of us.

Anyways, kiddos are all sleeping with the man of the house in the tent (waaaay past bedtime!) time to put together lunches so that they're ready to go in the morning! Johnny, I know you're out but I hope you and your hubby have a great time!

Kristi - posted on 06/02/2012

1,211

4

*please forgive the typos...my fingers can't keep up with my thoughts when I'm hostile sometimes* : )

Kristi - posted on 06/02/2012

1,211

4

Krista and Isobel

You are right on the money! In this particular case, I would enjoy a debate over morals. How moral is it to shame a rape victim? Deny a rape victim a place of refuge after being brutally attacked? A young woman has just been violated in the worst possible way, she has been stripped of every right afforded human being and they turn her away because they say it is morally wrong to treat her. (I'm obviously simplifying the situation but that's basically what it boils down to here) How completely sick and backwards is that? What God do you worship that says it is ok to not only turn away a woman who has just had her life irreparably damaged, who is traumatized and beaten, but to make her feel like a pirah because she was raped and she dared asked for help? I am very scared of that god. The emergency contraception pill is given to avoid an unwanted pregnancy due to a rape, not to abort a baby already conceived. Remind me again here, whose morals are skewed?

Aside from that, refer back to Krista and Isobel!

Krista - posted on 06/02/2012

12,562

16

Exactly. These, I believe are protected under a clause of the employment anti-discrimination laws called "Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications"

There was a case like that in Canada. In 1985, an employee of Canadian National Railway, K.S. Bhinder, a Sikh whose religion required that he wear a turban, lost his challenge of the CNR policy that required him to wear a hard hat.

I am fully supportive of peoples' religious beliefs being accommodated, up until it starts interfering with their job duties. So if you're a construction worker and your beliefs do not allow you to wear a hard hat, then get the hell off my construction site. And if you're a pharmacist or a doctor and your beliefs do not allow you to prescribe or dispense a legal medication, then please consider another medical field where you do not have to encounter this.

Krista - posted on 06/02/2012

12,562

16

And frankly, the refusal to do part of your job based on your personal beliefs is not universally protected by federal law.

If it was, then you wouldn't need conscience clauses, would you, now?

And right now, the only states that have medical conscience clauses are Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.

Isobel - posted on 06/02/2012

9,849

0

yeah, if you can't touch pork, please don't apply at my butcher shop.

if you can't touch alcohol I will NOT hire you to be a bartender.

and if you will not dispense birth control...get the hell out of my pharmacy.

Krista - posted on 06/02/2012

12,562

16

Nobody's forcing them to consume it. They don't have to touch it with their hands. But if they will not bring a plate of it to another person to consume, then no, I do not want them working for me.

Everybody has a right to their beliefs. But when your beliefs interfere with your ability to perform your job duties, then a line really does have to be drawn SOMEWHERE.

Glorianna - posted on 06/02/2012

9

2

Should Jews and Muslims be denied employment at your resteraunt because they wont touch pork? If I'm Muslim and worked at a Grocery Store, I can refuse to check out someone who is purchasing alcohol (sp). I have to have my manger or someone from customer service do it. To fire me because of it is a violation of the 14th amendment.

Krista - posted on 06/02/2012

12,562

16

If I'm a waitress in a busy restaurant, and an ardent vegetarian, and I refuse to serve any meals that involve meat, do you really think I should keep my job?

Krista - posted on 06/02/2012

12,562

16

No, Glorianna. Not one person here is advocating denying people education and occupation based on their beliefs.

What we are advocating is that they not allow those beliefs to interfere with their mandated duties of work. And that if their beliefs are SO strong that they cannot perform the duties of their work, then perhaps they would be more comfortable working in a situation where they do not run into those conflicts.

Glorianna - posted on 06/02/2012

9

2

Its really disturbing how many of you are advocating to deny people education and occupation based on religous beliefs. Talk about discrimination! What a bunch of hypocriticall bigots.

Krista - posted on 06/02/2012

12,562

16

And once AGAIN I go back to, each and every hospital should have staffed an extra person if a doctor is morally against something (be it abortions, blood transfusions or who knows what else). Hospitals are in charge of staffing, they are in charge of hiring, so they should make sure their bases are covered, even if that means having a second doctor on staff.

Also not feasible. Not in small hospitals. At my local hospital, we barely have enough physicians to provide 24 hour coverage as it is. So if I needed an emergency termination, they'd have to rouse another doctor out of bed and I'd have to really hope that this doctor would be okay with doing that procedure.

At the pharmacy, we have one pharmacist, and usually a pharmacy tech to assist. And really, if the pharmacist is THAT opposed to the pill, do you really think he's going to let his tech fill it?

Johnny is right. I do not expect a doctor to be all and to know all.

However, I expect a doctor or pharmacist to do the job that they were trained to do, and to do it based on my health, NOT on their own personal feelings.

And frankly, I think it is beyond ridiculous that this expectation is seen as so unreasonable, and that instead, I should drive all over hell and creation, or sell my house and move, or phone every hospital in the county to see which one is okay with dispensing EC, just in case I someday am raped.

I mean, REALLY.

Sarah - posted on 06/02/2012

52

20

I would like to point out, though in Oklahoma, she had other options. She doesn't need a prescription in Ok; I don't know how old the girl was, but I know her Mom could've shown her I'D and walk away with EC. Her last hope was not that Dr.

Johnny - posted on 06/02/2012

8,686

26

That's good because I've got to go too. We're going out for our wedding anniversary, an actual night without kids, to the big food festival. Hubby won tickets on the radio plus a big food basket and a bunch of gift certificates. Pretty cool considering we'd been planning a hot night on the sofa watching Game of Thrones.

Johnny - posted on 06/02/2012

8,686

26

I suppose the difference is that here, physicians do not have the right to opt out of training. In order to be licensed, they must have completed the full standard training for both general practice and the specific area of specialization which they chose. If they choose to take on a position where performing emergency abortions may be required, then they should be trained to do so. Just like any job, showing that you have the proper training to fulfill the tasks would be part of the hiring procedure. If you were hired for a position that required that you may possibly have to perform abortions, and you had the training to do so (and thus had been hired), you would not then have the right to later refuse to do so if there were no medical contraindications. That would be grounds for dismissal.

But the OP was not referring to an abortion, non-emergency or otherwise. The prescription of the morning after pill needs to be done fairly quickly after the fact. It may not be an emergency, but it is highly time-sensitive. In a place where alternative medical treatment is not readily available, refusal to prescribe the pill could mean that the girl was later forced to choose between having a full abortion or carrying an unwanted baby from a rape.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

OK, I have to pick back up tomorrow evening...right now, I have 5 little kids ready for some s'mores in the back yard and then a night in a tent! (and yes, they just got dropped off, I havn't been neglecting them while sitting here on the pc! lol) and tomorrow...the zoo!!! (super excited!)lol Good evening ladies, i look forward to further discussions!

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

I agree with everything you say about the OP, which is what I've said all along. IF the OP is 100% accurate, then he was grossly negligent in not referring her to someone who could/would help her. I also agree with the fact that ER p hysicians are not, and should not be expected to perform every procedure a patient might ever need upon walking into an ER. A doctor in the ER is expected to stabilize the patient enough for transfer or consult. What difference does it really make if a doctor is unable to perform a certain procedure, or just won't? As long as they get you the help.

Going with the outrage over it, and that specific train of thought, then every doctor should be required to go under full training for every procedure, including abortions. Since, doctors may opt out of certain training due to personal beliefs (and what's the difference then? they both cannot and willnot perform said procedure). To the best of my understanding from rather limited reading, more doctors lack the training to perform an abortion than have the training but flat out refuse. But, I could be seriously misunderstanding my readings, I dont' do well with medical mumbo jumbo. lol

Johnny - posted on 06/02/2012

8,686

26

Here anesthesiologists, neurologists, psychiatrists, podiatrists, and ENT's routinely consult in the ER on emergency cases. Because the emergency room physicians are not expected to be experts in all areas regardless of how quickly the help is needed. They are trained to stabilize, triage, and call for consult.

The problem as I see it in the OP as it was told, is that the physician refused to do a proper referral based on his/her moral views. Mary may be correct that this is not exactly what happened, that the patients responded to a reasonable referral out of anger due to the trauma that they were going through. But I only have the OP to go from, and based on that, it sounds like he did not fulfill his duties by either doing an exam and prescribing the requested treatment or referring her to someone who could do so.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

"That IS the requirement of the job, the ability to refer patients appropriately." This is exactly what I've said all along.



ETA: "Not every physician position in a hospital requires the person filling it to do every job in the hospital." I was talking specifically about the ER, nto physicians simply working in non-emergent care in a hospital.

Johnny - posted on 06/02/2012

8,686

26

""If you can't fulfill the requirements of the job, you must chose another duty or not have the job at all " Then we need to fire a LOT of doctors. The hospital in MY town, might as well be shut down. If a doctor can't do everything, that might be needed done in an ER, well, you'de have to find a God. I don't think there's a doctor on earth who can perform every surgery, every procedure and know everything about every illness etc etc."

Don't be ridiculous! Not every physician position in a hospital requires the person filling it to do every job in the hospital. We don't have the psychiatrists doing knee surgeries, the neurologists doing heart surgeries, or the podiatrists diagnosing ENT issues. However, you simply can not have an anesthesiologist who is morally opposed to blood transfusions and opiates. An ER physician who can not perform a specific task that they are not trained on should find someone who can or arrange transfer of the patient to an appropriate medical institution. This is the normal practice of medicine. That IS the requirement of the job, the ability to refer patients appropriately.

My GP doesn't do a lot of things. He refers me to an OB/GYN for my endometriosis and a urologist for my urinary tract problems. He refers my husband to a dermatologist for his hard-to-treat psoriasis. However, if he was unable to provide appropriate referrals to his patients, he would be failing to perform his duties and should be terminated. And here, he would lose his license to practice medicine.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

"First off I AM in hell when I have to take notes. Secondly, yes, my managers health is in question without notes, since she will have increased heart rate." So, there is a serious, valid and imminent risk of heart attack? If so, she should probably see a doctor huh?

"that it is NOT just religious beliefs here, it is moral ones too? So, the soul just may have nothing to do with a decision to be against the practice." You don't have to be religious to believe ina soul or afterlife. And morals are VASTLY different than simply not liking something or not agreeing with it. I don't agree with eating hormone pumped food...but there's nothing *moral* to do with that. So by all mean...compare note taking with an abortion...or in the case of this OP, the treatment for a rape victim...I'm sure she'd love to hear that...even more ridiculous than your original statement.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/02/2012

3,377

8

First off I AM in hell when I have to take notes. Secondly, yes, my managers health is in question without notes, since she will have increased heart rate.

I also thought, it has been said time and time again, that it is NOT just religious beliefs here, it is moral ones too? So, the soul just may have nothing to do with a decision to be against the practice.

It is just to show that, sometimes in life and in a persons career, they will have to do things that they do not agree or believe in. However, if it is required and is not going to impact the said persons health, then that thing should be done for them.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

Where did I say anyone didn't deserve healthcare? I said you make choices. Really, you want to bitch about a hospital hours away...then I guess I'll start bitching that I don't have a state of the art hospital with the highlest level NICU, the best doctors in the country, ability to perform complex brain surgeries, treat all forms of cancer etc etc etc. But, I have chosen to live where I live, so what right do I have to bitch that a hospital like that isn't in my town? If I want that kind of treatment, I need to move, travel to and from or suck it up. for now, I'm sucking it up, I don't *need* that treatment. If I ever need it, that's a bridge I will cross. It would depend on my children if I moved or not, my finances to afford gas plus lodging plus food vs rent/mortgage etc etc. See...choices.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

"I don't know, in my profession it is against my beliefs to take notes. It is not really a part of my job and well, I just don't believe it is required. However, if I want to be looked at as a team player and perhaps continue to get a pay cheque, well, I best be taken notes during meetings. " First off, this is just ridiculous. Note taking is not even in the same universe as health care. Do your notes immediately effect someone's health? Secondly, do you believe that taking notes will send you to hell, or harm your afterlife or but a black mark on your soul? If not, then we're not even having the same debate.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/02/2012

3,377

8

Isobel----problem solved...everybody move to the cities...people out in the country don't deserve healthcare.

LOL, yeah that is starting to look like our options, if we want to be considered rational thinking individuals.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/02/2012

3,377

8

I don't know, in my profession it is against my beliefs to take notes. It is not really a part of my job and well, I just don't believe it is required. However, if I want to be looked at as a team player and perhaps continue to get a pay cheque, well, I best be taken notes during meetings.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

"If you can't fulfill the requirements of the job, you must chose another duty or not have the job at all " Then we need to fire a LOT of doctors. The hospital in MY town, might as well be shut down. If a doctor can't do everything, that might be needed done in an ER, well, you'de have to find a God. I don't think there's a doctor on earth who can perform every surgery, every procedure and know everything about every illness etc etc. This is why we have multiple doctors (or should anyways) who have different strengths in different areas. Everyone seems fine with the idea that if a doctor actually CAN'T do something, or doesn't have the training to do something, then we just stabilize the patient and transfer/referring...THAT'S ok, but refusing to do something, stabilizing the patient and transfering/referring...NOT ok.

Isobel - posted on 06/02/2012

9,849

0

problem solved...everybody move to the cities...people out in the country don't deserve healthcare.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

Johnny- "Talk about impractical. " Impractical does not mean impossible. BUT, I've never heard of a hospital closing here. Not saying it's *never* happened, I've just never heard of it. This is an interesting point that I need to chew on. Although, I still have my instincts saying that, if they're going to stay where they are, then that IS in fact a choice (however shitty of a choice it may be) and again, I will go back to, they are then at the mercy of whatever hospital is next closest. And once AGAIN I go back to, each and every hospital should have staffed an extra person if a doctor is morally against something (be it abortions, blood transfusions or who knows what else). Hospitals are in charge of staffing, they are in charge of hiring, so they should make sure their bases are covered, even if that means having a second doctor on staff.

Johnny - posted on 06/02/2012

8,686

26

""To me it would be like hiring firefighters who couldn't carry an average weight adult from a burning building. " Actually, here, if you can't lift a certain amount of pounds (I don't know the exact number, but I would expect it to be over 100 lbs at least) then you are on hose duty. You don't get to enter the house. So really, this is true, and I'm ok with it. What's the point of sending someone in, risking their lives so they can what? Stare at a dying person, go back out and call for someone else? Waste of time."

Well exactly. If you can't fulfill the requirements of the job, you must chose another duty or not have the job at all (here all firefighters must meet the same requirements, there isn't a second tier of duties). It's rather the same principal.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

"Just because YOU would refuse, does not mean everyone has that option. My mothers MIL grew up on that farm. The farm is 150 years old. It was handed down through generations and it would be mighty disrespectful for them to just sell it and move, only because the closest hospital is an hour away. It IS also a large part of their lively hood. Excuse me while I shake my head but some people just don't have the choice, like you seem to think everyone does."

Actually, she still DOES have the choice. You may not like it, but disrespectfulness does not take away her ability to move, growing up somewhere does not take away your ability to move, just sayin'. Everyone has choices, where they live, looking into doctors, looking into hospitals etc etc. So, shake away...I'll do the same.

"To me it would be like hiring firefighters who couldn't carry an average weight adult from a burning building. " Actually, here, if you can't lift a certain amount of pounds (I don't know the exact number, but I would expect it to be over 100 lbs at least) then you are on hose duty. You don't get to enter the house. So really, this is true, and I'm ok with it. What's the point of sending someone in, risking their lives so they can what? Stare at a dying person, go back out and call for someone else? Waste of time.

Johnny - posted on 06/02/2012

8,686

26

It appears that pharmacists have to have medical grounds to refuse to fill a prescription here in Canada, but must follow certain regulations. According to a Manitoba government website:

"Where requirements regarding patient care and patient safety or information on the M3P
form are not met, the pharmacist can refuse to fill the prescription. The patient and the
authorized practitioner must be advised of the refusal to fill, and the refusal must be
documented on the prescription."

I know that two pharmacists here in British Columbia have lost their dispensary licenses and their pharmacare contracts over moral refusals to sell birth control and EC. It was big news a few years ago.

I really notice a huge difference in opinions on this thread based on Canadians/Australians vs. Americans. I think our view of how the medical system works is based on having a universal health care system as opposed to a user pay private system. It seems to drastically impact our opinions on the role of doctors and pharmacists in our lives.

Just a comment on the rural medicine issue. My in-laws have lived in the same region for 50 years. Until about 5 years ago, there were two 24 hour emergency rooms equa-distant from their homes, one with a trauma centre. As part of government budget cuts, both of these were closed and the trauma and 24 hour ER was moved to a single hospital an hour or so away. It is in a town farthest in the opposite direction from their jobs, and without many other prospects for work. If they were to move closer, they would be commuting at least 2 hours to work. There was significant public outcry, but it still happened. If the emergency room physician at the time refused to offer certain services, they would be about a 4 1/2 hour drive from the next closest night time medical care and pharmacy.

They can't just pick up and move! Their jobs are there, and if they sold their homes, they would not have enough money to purchase a place in a more populated region with better medical care. Housing in those places costs at least twice as much. Not to mention what would happen if everyone in the region started to have to move to a certain place just to get better medical care. Talk about impractical.

That is why it is imperative that every individual should have access to reasonable treatment regardless of what the doctor's beliefs are. If it is common medical practice, the recognized appropriate treatment for a condition, no doctor should have the right to refuse. As Krista says, it should be based on the correct HEALTH reasons. I completely believe that if you can not fulfill all the duties of your job, or find a way to ensure that all those duties are met in some way (even if you have to have a partner or something), then you need to find another job. To me it would be like hiring firefighters who couldn't carry an average weight adult from a burning building.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/02/2012

3,377

8

All our birth control is through a pharmacist. So, I guess in essence you DO know people that have to use a pharmacist. The other great thing about Canada and how the article in the OP would never happen here, is that we can buy the EC over the counter. They are in the same aisle as condoms at Walmart.



Some communites have a few day a week or few day a month community health centres but NOT all do.



Jodi---I would flat out refuse to live somewhere where I couldn't get to a hospital. If you choose to do so, then you choose to deal with those consequences, and if you choose to be ignorant of the fact that health now does not mean absolute health in the future, that is again, your fault.



Just because YOU would refuse, does not mean everyone has that option. My mothers MIL grew up on that farm. The farm is 150 years old. It was handed down through generations and it would be mighty disrespectful for them to just sell it and move, only because the closest hospital is an hour away. It IS also a large part of their lively hood. Excuse me while I shake my head but some people just don't have the choice, like you seem to think everyone does. It would be something else, if they arrived at the hospital and there was no one there willing to help her due to their moral or religious beliefs. The next closest hospital is an hour away, yet again.



Whatever, anyhow. The fact is, it is just not something we Canadians ever have to worry about. It is only you US Americans that may find yourself in such a shitty situation and for your sake, I hope you don't. If you do though, just remember how you believe the doctors beliefs are more important than treating you or your child. Just move on and figure out what to do next, hopefully you are not in a time sensitive situation, though.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

"Oh, so NOW that she has fallen ill, she should move?" It is an ignorant thought to think you will never fall ill and need medical care. I would flat out refuse to live somewhere where I couldn't get to a hospital. If you choose to do so, then you choose to deal with those consequences, and if you choose to be ignorant of the fact that health now does not mean absolute health in the future, that is again, your fault.

"and the new pharmacist refuses to fill the pill...then, what? I uproot my entire life and change jobs and leave my family and friends and MOVE, simply because the new pharmacist is refusing to fill a legal prescription from my doctor?" And yet again, I will go back to my original stance that hospitals (and I guess I will have to be very specific here) also pharmacies should have the staff to treat their patients. If that means have two pharmacists because one won't fill birth control, then so be it. Also, in terms, only of birth control here, I have no idea if Canada or Australia has anything like this, but here, nearly every town (even my rinky dink town has one set up 3 times a month in a spare room in our community center) here in my state has a public health center where vaccines are available, condoms are available, and you can pick up birth control pills which can be prescribed by your doctor or the public health doctor. I actually don't know anyone who gets their BC filled by a pharmacy personally, because here it's all done through public health services. They also can prescribe EC.

Jenny - posted on 06/02/2012

4,426

16

I'm with Krista. My doctor's moral stance on anything is irrelevant to me. I have no clue how my doctor feels about abortion because we don't talk about it. She is too busy being my doctor. If a health professional is denying someone coverage based on their belief system they should be flat out fired.

Krista - posted on 06/02/2012

12,562

16

Mary, I think a lot of us are using the JW doctors simply as an analogy. I understand the reality of the situation, but am just using the JW doctor to illustrate that this really IS a slippery slope, believe it or not. If we let doctors and pharmacists have a "free pass" based on their beliefs, then at what point do we say that one doctor's beliefs are worthy of respect but another's aren't? Can this translate over into other professions? Where do we draw the line? What if those beliefs are discriminatory -- do we still respect them then?

And yes, I AM having a hard time grasping all of this, because my doctors are paid for via my taxes. And despite what Jodi says, I'm not talking about me being a greedy, grasping "Give me what I want when I want it" type of patient. If it turns out that I want the pill, and I'm 38, overweight and a smoker, with a history of blood clots, then it is perfectly reasonable for the doctor to say, "No, this isn't the best option for you. Let's look at something else." I don't expect a doctor to always give me what I want. But I DO expect him or her to treat me based on my HEALTH, not on his or her morals. And I am shocked to my core that there are so many here who seem to think that this is too much to ask.

Again, if you don't want to find solutions, you won't find them. Also, I stick with my idea of location location location. If you live on a fault line, don't bitch about earthquakes, you live in tornado alley, don't bitch about tornadoes, you live on an island in the path of hurricans...don't bitch about hurricanes. You live in SUCH isolation as to risk your own life by the distance from a hospital, don't bitch about it...DO something about it.

Jodi, the entire point of the "distance" argument was that there are many people who are NOT far from a hospital or a pharmacy. But that hospital or pharmacy are the ONLY game in town. That is the case for many people in many countries. They live in small villages, and there's a little hospital or clinic there, and a pharmacy. So they can receive emergent care, get their checkups and bloodwork done, and fill prescriptions. It all works very well. But if someone has their entire life, family, job, etc. there, and the pharmacy changes hands, and the new pharmacist refuses to fill the pill...then, what? I uproot my entire life and change jobs and leave my family and friends and MOVE, simply because the new pharmacist is refusing to fill a legal prescription from my doctor?

Sure. That seems fair.

Mary - posted on 06/02/2012

3,292

31

Rosie - it is a little different than your situation, because the doctor is the owner of his own business. I think you certainly could tell off that asshat, or refuse to help him; whether or not you still had job afterwards would really depend upon your employer. As for your doctor not providing the services you think s/he should - well, you do what you would do if any other business didn't do the job to your satisfaction: voice your complaint, and don't go back. If I go to salon for cut and highlights, but the stylist I've chosen refuses to do those highlights because she thinks they will look tacky on me, or my hair is too fried, I can't make her do it. And if I don't like the cut she gave me, I can bitch about it, and tell everyone I know what a butcher she is, but I really can't change the way she cuts hair. I know most of us don't like hearing that a doctor's private practice is that similar to this, but, in simplified terms, it really is.



I also think there are some misconceptions about these fictitious JW doctors. First of all, I don't think there are all that many of them out there. I certainly have never encountered one. However, it should be noted that with the exception of anesthesiologists, and perhaps in some trauma centers, it would be exceedingly rare for a physician to be the one administering blood products. Their limitations as a healthcare provider in dealing with others receiving blood products are a little complicated, and I do not claim to completely understand them. I have worked with two nurses who were JW's . They did not work in areas like the ER, OR, or L&D where emergent, dump-it-in-as-fast-as-you-can transfusions were not an unusual occurrence. The both worked in floor nursing, which were typically more stable, controlled environments. If they had a patient who needed a transfusion, they could still care for the patient during that time. The only stipulation was that another RN had to physically handle the blood product for them. This really only meant that someone else had to be the one to hang and initiate the transfusion, and then take it down when it was complete. It was such a minuscule thing in the overall care of the patient, and never caused any disruption or compromise in patient care.



**ETA - I'm fairly confident that most JW's would simply avoid those jobs in healthcare where blood transfusions in an emergent setting are most prevalent. It is a bit different than either prescribing BC or performing elective abortions. Refusing to give blood to a person in desperate need could be the difference between life and death. The same really cannot be said for writing an Rx for the pill.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/02/2012

3,377

8

Jodi---I hate to laugh at something like this, but if it were me, I'd be doing SOMETHING about getting my ass closer to a hospital. Again, if you don't want to find solutions, you won't find them. Also, I stick with my idea of location location location. If you live on a fault line, don't bitch about earthquakes, you live in tornado alley, don't bitch about tornadoes, you live on an island in the path of hurricans...don't bitch about hurricanes. You live in SUCH isolation as to risk your own life by the distance from a hospital, don't bitch about it...DO something about it.



They are fucking farmers. She is 70 years of age. Oh, so NOW that she has fallen ill, she should move? Yeah, I think you should keep on laughing, since it is extremly ignorant for you to have such thoughts.



ETA:

The fact is there ARE many rural areas in Canada. Much more rural that what you have ever experienced in the USA, I can pretty much guarentee. People aren't only thinking of where the closest hospital is, when they make a decision to live somewhere. Some people also don't have a choice to be picky. Have you ever thought of that?

Rosie - posted on 06/02/2012

8,657

30

they are a business littlemiss..i pay them to prescribe me medicine. if they don't give me what i need why do i have to pay them? once i am employed i have to follow by the rules of my employer...i am no longer my own "person" , i am part of a business, and my actions should reflect the visions that my employer has. in MY business i cannot refuse to help someone that "offends" me somehow. so when the asshat that is wearing a ron paul 2012 shirt and goes on and on about how obama sucks, and then hands me a little pamphlet telling me i'm going to hell if i don't conform to his religion, i have to suck up his assholeness, tell him hi, thank you, and have a nice day all the while smiling like a harpy. i don't get to refuse to help him because i don't agree with anything he stands for.
you honestly agree that a doctor who is jehovahs witness should be able to refuse to give someone blood based off of their own problems with it? hope your kid doesn't need a transfusion and you get the crazy doctor who won't give him one.

Jodi - posted on 06/02/2012

2,694

52

"She has many many times had to sit around and wait, while bleeding from her ass and throwing up for hours, before ANYONE could get her to a hospital. She has been on her death bed, more than once. Houses are 10-20mins apart. They ALL either work or are too old to drive...." I hate to laugh at something like this, but if it were me, I'd be doing SOMETHING about getting my ass closer to a hospital. Again, if you don't want to find solutions, you won't find them. Also, I stick with my idea of location location location. If you live on a fault line, don't bitch about earthquakes, you live in tornado alley, don't bitch about tornadoes, you live on an island in the path of hurricans...don't bitch about hurricanes. You live in SUCH isolation as to risk your own life by the distance from a hospital, don't bitch about it...DO something about it.

Mary - posted on 06/02/2012

3,292

31

The issue about regular OB/GYN's all performing elective abortions is actually sort of not worth debating. Truth is, here in the US, most of them don't do it, and it really has little to do with personal objections to it. If I had ever had an unwanted pregnancy, none of the OB/GYN's I have ever seen over the course of my lifetime have ever done them (and I know for a fact that all of them were staunchly pro-choice). It's just not they way their practices are set up. They have privileges at one, maybe two hospitals for both OB as well as their GYN patients. Elective abortions - especially those in the first trimester, are rarely, if ever, done in hospitals (it's less than 10%) - they are done in freestanding clinics who have their own staff physicians. The only terminations performed in hospitals are those that are done for "medical" reasons, such as when anomalies in compatible with life are found in the later half of the 2nd trimester, or the pregnancy itself is the cause of jeopardizing the life of the mother.



This fact is actually causing a bit of a problem in the availability of OB/GYN's that have been trained to perform elective abortions. Residents are no longer even routinely seeing them done, much less actually doing them during the course of their residencies since they have been all but removed from the hospital setting. I am referring here to both chemical abortions, and the later-term D&E's (dilatation and evacuation). This fact even impacted the care given in my Catholic hospital, since this procedure is also performed on those who have a 2nd trimester loss (generally after the 15th week - it's dependent on fetal size). A fair number of OB's who had completed their residencies after the late 80's were not clinically skilled in this procedure, and had to refer their patient to our perinatologists. It was only some of the "older" OB's who felt comfortable doing these.



Krista, I want to be very clear here - I do not like this reality of American healthcare, but as Aleksandra understood, in light of how our system runs, and in light of the fact that private physician practices are independent businesses, the choice about refusing to prescribe what (technically) is a medically unnecessary drug or elective procedure is theirs to make. In that same vein, it also why I do not think that a physician cannot be mandated to perform a transvaginal ultrasound prior to a termination, or why I think a doctor can refuse to perform a elective circumcision if they are morally opposed to them.***



The difference in the ER setting is EMTALA. The federal government does have the ability to step in here and dictate certain care standards, and override individual choices/morals/beliefs because pretty much all hospitals have a "provider agreement" with the federal government to care for medicare and medicaid patients. A hospital that does not comply with these statutes runs the ultimate risk of losing the ability to care for these patients - and that is financial suicide. Despite our "private" insurance system, the federal government is still the largest insurer out there, and no hospital could survive without them.



***edited to make sense!