|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:07 pm
This is something that was in the ED a few days ago, so I thought I'd bring it into our guild, since I think it makes for an interesting discussion topic.
Should medical professionals be able to pick and choose the people they treat? Should they be obligated to treat people criminals and/or people who violate their personal beliefs?
Some example scenarios:
A murderer escapes from prison and, while crossing the street, gets hit by a car and brought to a nearby hospital. The doctor attending to him has just recently seen something (television news story, news paper article, etc.) detailing this criminal's escape, and recognises the murderer from the pictures he's seen circulating the news media. Should the doctor be able to walk away from the injured murderer and refuse to treat him, or is it his obligation as a doctor to treat the man regardless of his crimes?
Another example:
A pregnant woman comes into a hospital in labour, and the attending doctor asks if her husband will be coming to the birth. The woman replies that she's unmarried. Should the doctor refuse to aid her if he believes that non-marrital sex is immoral?
Something else that I've heard of going on in several places is pharmicists refusing to give certain people medications. Birth control pills to women if they're against contraceptives, HIV medications to people because they believe that AIDS is a punishment for immoral people, etc.
So, do you believe that medical professionals should be able to pick and choose who and what they treat? Would you find it reasonable if, in any of the above situations, for the medical professional to refuse treatment? Why or why not? Do you see any difference between the above examples? Why would one be acceptable, while another would not?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:36 pm
Medical professionals should not be allowed to chose who they treat. The profession itself is oriented toward caring for people, and so to enter into such a profession means that one will care for people no matter their background, past actions, or anything.
To deny to treat someone who is in need of help is to betray the very principles of the medical profession: Do no harm. To not treat someone is to do great harm, especially if they are in dire need of treatment.
Pharmacists, on the other hand, deal primarily with medicines/drugs. They basically run a business. The doctor makes a prescription, the patient then comes to a local pharmacy to have it filed, and the pharmacist examines the prescription and then fills it. The money exchanged goes partially to the pharmacist, who did the labor of filling the prescription and explaining the specifics of the drug to the patient. Another portion of the money goes to the source of the drugs - the businesses that make them. This is similar to a grocery store, which has to buy the produce from the farmers who grows the produce, and then the store will sell it to the customers.
Any store can refuse to serve a customer. Although it is a frowned upon practice, for most businesses are primarily concerned with earning money.
If the pharmacy is tied to a specific religion and this is made clear in the store itself, then it may be able to refuse business to a customer based upon the specifics of the prescription. The customer will then take his/her business elsewhere, for there are other pharmacies that may not have religious ties.
However, if a pharmacy has no religious ties, and it is just an employee deciding this on his/her own, then it should not be done. It must be the decision of the business itself, not one employee. If that employee does not wish to serve the customer due to his/her religion disagreeing with the prescription, then the employee must also be willing to take the consequences of losing that sale, which the company needs to continue to survive. This will result in some sort of reprimand and/or discussion with the employee's boss, which may have negative results.
Now medical professions such as doctors, nurses, surgeons, and so forth do not operate a business. The hospital may be considered a business in the sense that it does require money in order to use its services, but at the same time, it cannot deny treatment of someone who is in dire need of treatment. They are obligated to bring the injured and/or sick individual into the hospital and treat them, for the primary focus of the hospital is not money, but caring for people. Money is needed for the upkeep of the hospital, and is why services used at the hospital cost money. However, such services, due to the very reason a hospital exists, cannot and should not be denied to anyone who is in need of such services, otherwise, the hospital would be contradicting its very nature. It is the same for medical professionals.
This is at least my train of thought on the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Violet_Abyss Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:12 am
Well, I kind of think that if it's not a life or death situation, the doctor should be able to refuse treatment for moral or ethical reasons, however, if he or she chooses to do so I think that they should be required to refer them to another physician. Although I guess, in a hospital it would be a different situation. I was more thinking of like clinics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:05 am
Doctors should not be of a judgemental character; yes, they should be able to figure out if someone's lying out of their back teeth, but it is not a doctor's place to judge someone's godd or bad. The reality is that only God can do that. Full stop. Certain practices cannot be employed by (a suprisingly large amount of) certian doctors, for the conflict of interest. A doctor should want to help a woman (using the classic example of abortion), but may not think abortion would really help this woman in the long term. It is then perfectly reasonable for the first doctor to refuse treatment, but again, as said above, the doctor then should refer to a second doctor.
Pharmacists are in a similar position, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:01 pm
In a non-religious, secular hospital or clinic, whatever the Government says should go.
Doctors should not do anything illegal, but Doctors or Pharmacists and medical professionals should be required to do as the patient wishes or what is required so long as it's legal.
Doctors are a risk if they refuse to do certain things and work a secular hospital-- I have had an abortion, it was an emergency D&C because I was bleeding to death. If my doctor had been against abortion, I could have easily been killed simply because that doctor didn't believe in abortion. At least, my chances of dying would have went up tremendously.
Any doctor should be willing to do a legal treatment/surgery/etc if the patients life depends on it, period.
If it's an optional surgery, etc then they COULD say no but I think they MUST refer the patient to somebody who will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:15 am
Anarya Medical professionals should not be allowed to chose who they treat. The profession itself is oriented toward caring for people, and so to enter into such a profession means that one will care for people no matter their background, past actions, or anything.
To deny to treat someone who is in need of help is to betray the very principles of the medical profession: Do no harm. To not treat someone is to do great harm, especially if they are in dire need of treatment.
Pharmacists, on the other hand, deal primarily with medicines/drugs. They basically run a business. The doctor makes a prescription, the patient then comes to a local pharmacy to have it filed, and the pharmacist examines the prescription and then fills it. The money exchanged goes partially to the pharmacist, who did the labor of filling the prescription and explaining the specifics of the drug to the patient. Another portion of the money goes to the source of the drugs - the businesses that make them. This is similar to a grocery store, which has to buy the produce from the farmers who grows the produce, and then the store will sell it to the customers.
Any store can refuse to serve a customer. Although it is a frowned upon practice, for most businesses are primarily concerned with earning money.
If the pharmacy is tied to a specific religion and this is made clear in the store itself, then it may be able to refuse business to a customer based upon the specifics of the prescription. The customer will then take his/her business elsewhere, for there are other pharmacies that may not have religious ties.
However, if a pharmacy has no religious ties, and it is just an employee deciding this on his/her own, then it should not be done. It must be the decision of the business itself, not one employee. If that employee does not wish to serve the customer due to his/her religion disagreeing with the prescription, then the employee must also be willing to take the consequences of losing that sale, which the company needs to continue to survive. This will result in some sort of reprimand and/or discussion with the employee's boss, which may have negative results.
Now medical professions such as doctors, nurses, surgeons, and so forth do not operate a business. The hospital may be considered a business in the sense that it does require money in order to use its services, but at the same time, it cannot deny treatment of someone who is in dire need of treatment. They are obligated to bring the injured and/or sick individual into the hospital and treat them, for the primary focus of the hospital is not money, but caring for people. Money is needed for the upkeep of the hospital, and is why services used at the hospital cost money. However, such services, due to the very reason a hospital exists, cannot and should not be denied to anyone who is in need of such services, otherwise, the hospital would be contradicting its very nature. It is the same for medical professionals.
This is at least my train of thought on the matter. Wow, well said and my exact opinion, so I just quote. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:48 am
I think that it is not the place of the doctor or pharmacist to judge the patient; that's God's job. For example, a woman going in to fill a prescription for the birth control pill may not be filling it because she wants to have sex frivolously but because her periods are heavy or because, well, there are some drugs that would cause such grotesque birth defects that doctors are legally bound to prescribe "the pill" along with the actual drug. For a pharmacist to refuse to fill the prescription in these cases would be, in retrospect, absolutely ludicrous.
As for the instance of the doctor, has she not sinned? Has he not lusted after women in his heart? How then can he judge this pregnant woman? Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount that lust is to be equated with adultery. In Romans 2, Paul writes that, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (Romans 2:1)
I don't think that this is a case of a few people refusing to do their jobs. (Which brings me to 1 Peter 2:18-- "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.") No, this is a case of judgment and eternity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 3:23 pm
Both of these cases would be examples of abuse of power. Doctors (at least they used to) swear a Hippocratic oath, and in that swear to uphold human life no matter what. They also swear that "What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about."
So that means that they should treat said murderer and say nothing.
Doctors are there for the preservation of human life. If they have problems with certain kinds of people, they should change professions. End of story.
I agree with what has been said about pharmacists losing sales and such. It's that individual's problem and they will have to deal with their superior if it ever comes to light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:15 pm
Isn't the medical professional's oath something along the lines of helping all they can, no matter the need nor the cost? It seems rather unethical for a doctor to deny someone else treatment because they don't agree with what they're doing - especially if it's a real emergancy.
A private hospital is one thing - they aren't held to the same standards as the public service. But if it's government-funded, their personal opinions - and religions leanings - need to stay out of the work place, in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:28 am
I just watched Batman Begins. At the end has something to do with this topic...
Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?
I'm won't kill you...but I don't have to save you. *Batman glides away as the train crashes*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
