Should Doctors Have to Provide Their Beliefs to Patients

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

So with the other debate I ran across things like this:

When Elizabeth Dotts walked into her new doctor's office for a gynecologic exam and checkup, she didn't realize she was treading into the front lines of a culture war. "I was just going for my annual visit, nothing out of the ordinary," says the 26-year-old YWCA grant coordinator. Dotts, who was single, had recently moved to Birmingham, Alabama, and was seeing an M.D. recommended by a coworker. The visit was unremarkable until she asked for a refill of her birth control prescription. That's when the doctor informed her that he was Catholic and the pills were against his religion.

"The look he gave me actually made me feel ashamed," Dotts says. "Like I had this wild and crazy sex life. Like he was trying to protect me from myself." Her bewilderment quickly turned to anger — "I thought, 'Wait, what in the world? Where am I?' " — especially when she remembered that her insurance covered only one annual gynecology checkup. Dotts, who'd majored in religion in college, got tough with the doctor.

"I'm glad for you that you're faithful," she told him. "But don't push it on me. I'm here for my treatment, and I expect you to give it to me." Five minutes of verbal sparring later, the doctor relented with a six-month prescription — but only after Dotts told him she had been put on the Pill to relieve menstrual cramping, not to prevent pregnancy. Dotts grabbed the prescription and left, resolving to find herself a new gynecologist. "Before, walking into a doctor's office, I assumed we were on the same side," she says. "I don't make that assumption now. I ask a million questions and advocate for myself."

http://www.nbcnews.c...e/#.U7jq_7HQtLM

So should this doctor have to be required to fully disclose his religion and what procedures/prescriptions he would not be willing to do prior to a patient's visit? Should a person calling for a first time appointment be told that Dr. so n so is a practicing Catholic and will not prescribe birth control do to religion.

While this doctor did give in, if had decided not to you know that he would not have reversed any charges, and Dotts would have had to of immediately scheduled another visit to receive her prescription and pay additional charges.

The stakes were high for Realtor Cheryl Bray when she visited a physician in Encinitas, California, two and a half years ago. Though she was there for a routine physical, the reason for the exam was anything but routine: Then a single 41-year-old, Bray had decided to adopt a baby in Mexico and needed to prove to authorities there that she was healthy. "I was under a tight deadline," Bray remembers; she had been matched with a birth mother who was less than two months from delivering. Bray had already passed a daunting number of tests — having her taxes certified, multiple background checks, home inspections by a social worker, psychological evaluations. When she showed up at the office of Fred Salley, M.D., a new doctor a friend had recommended, she was looking forward to crossing another task off her list. Instead, 10 minutes into the appointment, Dr. Salley asked, "So, your husband is in agreement with your decision to adopt?"

"I'm not married," Bray told him.

"You're not?" He calmly put down his pen. "Then I'm not comfortable continuing this exam."

Bray says she tried to reason with Dr. Salley but received only an offer for a referral at some future date. Dr. Salley disputes this, telling SELF that he offered to send Bray to another doctor in his group that day. "My decision to refer Ms. Bray was not because she was unmarried; rather, it was based on my moral belief that a child should have two parental units," he adds. "Such religious beliefs are a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

Then in this case the doctor's office fully knows the reason for the physical before hand, but it is not until actually into the appointment itself that the doctor informs her that he will not perform a physical for a adoption because she is single. Again, should this not be something that should have to be disclosed prior to the appointment. Especially considering the reason before the appointment was most likely made and it's intention known prior to her every going to the office.

And while you can make the argument well the consumer should ask more questions, how many of you have really made a appointment with, or been referred to say a specialist by a GP, and thought "I wonder if his religious beliefs will interfere with my care?"

Also before anyone makes the comment about her adopting a baby from Mexico, I know from family that it is incredibly difficult if almost impossible for adults over the age of 40 to adopt a infant in the United States. Mine went overseas.

[cptau 169]

Too bad NBC doesn't also spend its reporters to investigate and report on problems like the VA, IRS, and Benghazi coverup scandals.

The do no harm part of their oath can be taken to a lot of situations not just the ones around birth control. Does keeping a terminal or very elderly patient alive a few days or weeks longer doing good or harm? The ethical part of the medical profession would be difficult for many.

I'm surprised how doctors with views like the ones described aren't well known for their views. And why would a doctor with religious concerns over BC go into a speciality where prescribing the pill is common?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I would say if I were a doctor in that field, and I could not in good conscience prescribe contraceptives or certain forms of contraceptives, I would make sure that my patients knew that beforehand. In all those forms a new patient fills out, I would have one that states the policy of my practice on such things and have them sign it and instruct the tech that first works the patient up to ask them if they understood the form that stated our policy on BC. If at that point the patient objected, I would allow them to end the visit and there would no charges accrued.

All that said, I don't think the answer to our coming years is to discourage more people from going in to medicine. We're going to need all the doctors we can get. If some of them have moral beliefs that preclude them from performing certain procedures or prescribing certain medicines, so be it. They should disclose those policies before hand and then people can decide if they can live with those policies or they'd rather see a different doctor.

Same thing goes for pharmacies. If a pharmacy decides they aren't going to carry certain kinds of drugs, such as contraceptives or RU-486 for instance, they should be allowed the freedom to do that. No business should be compelled to carry a product.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Good thing she majored in religion in college.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Good thing she majored in religion in college.

One can study a thing to the nth degree and in the end have no better understanding of it than they did before.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

I would say if I were a doctor in that field, and I could not in good conscience prescribe contraceptives or certain forms of contraceptives, I would make sure that my patients knew that beforehand. In all those forms a new patient fills out, I would have one that states the policy of my practice on such things and have them sign it and instruct the tech that first works the patient up to ask them if they understood the form that stated our policy on BC. If at that point the patient objected, I would allow them to end the visit and there would no charges accrued.

All that said, I don't think the answer to our coming years is to discourage more people from going in to medicine. We're going to need all the doctors we can get. If some of them have moral beliefs that preclude them from performing certain procedures or prescribing certain medicines, so be it. They should disclose those policies before hand and then people can decide if they can live with those policies or they'd rather see a different doctor.

Same thing goes for pharmacies. If a pharmacy decides they aren't going to carry certain kinds of drugs, such as contraceptives or RU-486 for instance, they should be allowed the freedom to do that. No business should be compelled to carry a product.

There are many specialties in medicine and few involve prescribing birth control. A doctor that isn't willing to serve his clients' basic needs isn't performing his job in an ethical manner.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Good thing she majored in religion in college.

One can study a thing to the nth degree and in the end have no better understanding of it than they did before.

What does that have to do with this situation?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I would say if I were a doctor in that field, and I could not in good conscience prescribe contraceptives or certain forms of contraceptives, I would make sure that my patients knew that beforehand. In all those forms a new patient fills out, I would have one that states the policy of my practice on such things and have them sign it and instruct the tech that first works the patient up to ask them if they understood the form that stated our policy on BC. If at that point the patient objected, I would allow them to end the visit and there would no charges accrued.

All that said, I don't think the answer to our coming years is to discourage more people from going in to medicine. We're going to need all the doctors we can get. If some of them have moral beliefs that preclude them from performing certain procedures or prescribing certain medicines, so be it. They should disclose those policies before hand and then people can decide if they can live with those policies or they'd rather see a different doctor.

Same thing goes for pharmacies. If a pharmacy decides they aren't going to carry certain kinds of drugs, such as contraceptives or RU-486 for instance, they should be allowed the freedom to do that. No business should be compelled to carry a product.

There are many specialties in medicine and few involve prescribing birth control. A doctor that isn't willing to serve his clients' basic needs isn't performing his job in an ethical manner.

That's like saying that because you went into reconstructive/plastic surgery to help patients after burns, disease or accidents, that you're being unethical when you choose not to do vanity procedures for people who just want bigger boobs or a different nose. Birth control is not a basic need. And given that the Catholic Church, which opposes all forms of artificial contraception, allows for therapeutic use of certain birth control drugs for conditions like ovarian cysts or endometriosis, I imagine most if not all doctors in that field would prescribe for genuine needed applications of such drugs.

It's telling that you think that if a doctor doesn't offer a service that has the primary purpose of breaking something that's working is being unethical. I don't see the problem here so long as everyone understands up front what he is willing to do. Using your logic, any ob/gyn unwilling to perform abortions could be considered unwilling to serve his clients' basic needs.

When did we come to the point that we've so confused 'wants' with 'needs?' One's desire for prescription contraceptives does not place an obligation on a doctor to prescribe it for you. The vast majority of doctors will be more than willing to help you in this regard. Why must we force someone to faciliate acts that go against their consciences? The obvious route that enhances freedom for all is full disclosure up front, but no doctor is forced to perform procedures or prescribe medications that violate their beliefs. Choose a different doctor if the one you go to doesn't do the things you want.

And for the record, I'd say the same thing for a urologist that wishes to treat disease and other problems of the urinary tracts and reproductive systems, but refuses to perform vasectomies. Being in a field does not obligate one to perform every single possible procedure or offer every possible related medicine.

Good thing she majored in religion in college.

One can study a thing to the nth degree and in the end have no better understanding of it than they did before.

What does that have to do with this situation?

She may have studied religion in college, but she still has no grasp of why its important to people. Anytime it conflicts with her modernist notions, she seems to expect that religion should be cast to the side. It would be one thing if she was merely upset that this hadn't been told to her before the appointment, but the article indicates that she's simply upset that he won't put aside his convictions and prescribe whatever she wants.

[AURaptor 1,137]

What does that have to do with this situation?

" Dotts, who'd majored in religion in college, got tough with the doctor. "

Seemed important enough to include into the article.

I'd like to think that, were the doctor a Muslim, she'd have been equally tough.

[Weegle777 78]

Meanwhile, muslims are killing women in honor killings for religious reasons, but we focus on something so trivial as a woman not getting what she wants, and then whining about it. GO TO ANOTHER DOCTOR, IT'S THAT SIMPLE. Good grief.

[alexava 6,974]

i would guess a very large percentage of patients visit a gyno for the purpose of obtaining birth control. if you are that devout catholic that might not be the field for you. if a gyno is to operate that way he should be forced to put a sign explaining this on his door and require his staff to inform perspective patients over the phone as well as in phone book advertisements and websites. no need to waste other people's time and money.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

i would guess a very large percentage of patients visit a gyno for the purpose of obtaining birth control.

Gynocologist visits are for a whole lot more than birth control. Most girls start going to one shortly after their first period for women's health reasons that have nothing to do with birth control. They may spend the first 6-10 years of their relationship with that gynocologist without birth control every being a factor.

On top of that, a general practitioner can prescribe birth control. It's not limited to ob/gyns.

if you are that devout catholic that might not be the field for you.

Utter rubbish. There are a whole host of things that gynecologists do for female patients that have nothing to do with birth control. You don't go to school to be one to be a PEZ dispenser for BC pills. Same thing with a urologist. The fact that one chooses not to perform vasectomies shouldn't mean they aren't fit for urology. There is far more to being one than just doing the ol' "snip-snip" to men who don't want anymore kiddos.

As I said before, the last thing on earth we need to be doing is discouraging more people from going into various medical fields simply because some can't get their heads around religious freedom in this country.

if a gyno is to operate that way he should be forced to put a sign explaining this on his door and require his staff to inform perspective patients over the phone as well as in phone book advertisements and websites. no need to waste other people's time and money.

I would agree that it should be made known to new patients before any office visit charges are incurred what your policies are on certain procedures or prescriptions. I have zero problem with that. The way to handle this that gives the most freedom to all without taking anyone's rights away is informed consent and being willing to leave each other be. We don't have to agree to respect each others' beliefs.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

I would say if I were a doctor in that field, and I could not in good conscience prescribe contraceptives or certain forms of contraceptives, I would make sure that my patients knew that beforehand. In all those forms a new patient fills out, I would have one that states the policy of my practice on such things and have them sign it and instruct the tech that first works the patient up to ask them if they understood the form that stated our policy on BC. If at that point the patient objected, I would allow them to end the visit and there would no charges accrued.

All that said, I don't think the answer to our coming years is to discourage more people from going in to medicine. We're going to need all the doctors we can get. If some of them have moral beliefs that preclude them from performing certain procedures or prescribing certain medicines, so be it. They should disclose those policies before hand and then people can decide if they can live with those policies or they'd rather see a different doctor.

Same thing goes for pharmacies. If a pharmacy decides they aren't going to carry certain kinds of drugs, such as contraceptives or RU-486 for instance, they should be allowed the freedom to do that. No business should be compelled to carry a product.

There are many specialties in medicine and few involve prescribing birth control. A doctor that isn't willing to serve his clients' basic needs isn't performing his job in an ethical manner.

That's like saying that because you went into reconstructive/plastic surgery to help patients after burns, disease or accidents, that you're being unethical when you choose not to do vanity procedures for people who just want bigger boobs or a different nose. Birth control is not a basic need. And given that the Catholic Church, which opposes all forms of artificial contraception, allows for therapeutic use of certain birth control drugs for conditions like ovarian cysts or endometriosis, I imagine most if not all doctors in that field would prescribe for genuine needed applications of such drugs.

It's telling that you think that if a doctor doesn't offer a service that has the primary purpose of breaking something that's working is being unethical. I don't see the problem here so long as everyone understands up front what he is willing to do. Using your logic, any ob/gyn unwilling to perform abortions could be considered unwilling to serve his clients' basic needs.

When did we come to the point that we've so confused 'wants' with 'needs?' One's desire for prescription contraceptives does not place an obligation on a doctor to prescribe it for you. The vast majority of doctors will be more than willing to help you in this regard. Why must we force someone to faciliate acts that go against their consciences? The obvious route that enhances freedom for all is full disclosure up front, but no doctor is forced to perform procedures or prescribe medications that violate their beliefs. Choose a different doctor if the one you go to doesn't do the things you want.

And for the record, I'd say the same thing for a urologist that wishes to treat disease and other problems of the urinary tracts and reproductive systems, but refuses to perform vasectomies. Being in a field does not obligate one to perform every single possible procedure or offer every possible related medicine.

Good thing she majored in religion in college.

One can study a thing to the nth degree and in the end have no better understanding of it than they did before.

What does that have to do with this situation?

She may have studied religion in college, but she still has no grasp of why its important to people. Anytime it conflicts with her modernist notions, she seems to expect that religion should be cast to the side. It would be one thing if she was merely upset that this hadn't been told to her before the appointment, but the article indicates that she's simply upset that he won't put aside his convictions and prescribe whatever she wants.

Your analogy is absurd on so many levels. In this case, she's not expecting "whatever she wants." She's expecting basic birth control medicine from her Gynecologist. Almost any woman would be shocked and offended by that response. And, yes, to best avoid unwanted pregnancy birth control is a medical need. We don't go to doctors for food and shelter.

Your claim that she has no understanding of why religion is important to people based on this small snippet is as closeminded of a statement as I've heard on here and reflects your own bias. She didn't hire a doctor to defer to his preferences for her life, she hired him to do what almost every other Gynecologist does. It's amazing that you find her to be the insensitive one here .

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Meanwhile, muslims are killing women in honor killings for religious reasons, but we focus on something so trivial as a woman not getting what she wants, and then whining about it. GO TO ANOTHER DOCTOR, IT'S THAT SIMPLE. Good grief.

I'm sure she will in the future, genius, but she only gets one such visit per year paid by insurance.

And quit acting like we can only ever discuss one absurd thing .

[Weegle777 78]

So go to another doctor instead of whining to a news agency. If my doc said that he wouldn't treat me for something, I go somewhere else. I don't run to a news agency to whine about it. This is what is wrong with America. We are all a bunch of privileged, whiny little pansies that have to run and tattle on somebody when we don't get our way and get our wittle feewings hurt. What a waste of time.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Your analogy is absurd on so many levels. In this case, she's not expecting "whatever she wants." She's expecting basic birth control medicine from her Gynecologist. Almost any woman would be shocked and offended by that response. And, yes, to best avoid unwanted pregnancy birth control is a medical need. We don't go to doctors for food and shelter.

And probably within the next year or so, I plan on getting a vasectomy. That still doesn't give me the right to demand that a urologist perform the procedure on me, regardless of whether he wants to offer said service or not. If I went to one and he/she said they don't perform them, it would never occur to me to try to force them to or expect that they should be forced. I'd just go somewhere else.

While I agree that this should have been made known to the patient upfront, I still don't disagree with the principle that going into a field obligates a doctor to perform any and every possible procedure or prescribe any medicine that could possibly fall under that umbrella. And frankly, I don't think it should be require a religious reason to not offer certain services. So long as you state what you do and don't do, the patient is free to decide whether they want to come to you or go elsewhere. If a urologist wants to focus on treating diseases, malfunctions and other problems but not do vasectomies, so be it. If a gynecologist wants to focus on diseases and issues like cancer, prolapse, infections and general reproductive health but not on abortions or birth control, that is their right as well. There's nothing wrong with ordering one's practice around those efforts which seek to help a patient's body function as it should rather than things that stop it from functioning as it was designed.

Your claim that she has no understanding of why religion is important to people based on this small snippet is as closeminded of a statement as I've heard on here and reflects your own bias. She didn't hire a doctor to defer to his preferences for her life, she hired him to do what almost every other Gynecologist does. It's amazing that you find her to be the insensitive one her.

I think he was wrong to not inform her of what services he provided and didn't provide up front. In that situation he should have not charged her for an office visit nor filed it with insurance so she could find another doctor. But to expect, nay, demand that someone do something for you, conscience be damned is wrong.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

So go to another doctor instead of whining to a news agency. If my doc said that he wouldn't treat me for something, I go somewhere else. I don't run to a news agency to whine about it. This is what is wrong with America. We are all a bunch of privileged, whiny little pansies that have to run and tattle on somebody when we don't get our way and get our wittle feewings hurt. What a waste of time.

The only thing that I think she has a point on is that the doctor should not have charged her for a visit or filed it on insurance so that she could use that yearly ob/gyn visit covered by insurance somewhere else. Full disclosure, but preserve rights of conscience.

[Weegle777 78]

That I agree with. He should have disclosed his beliefs beforehand. And refunded her cost.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Your analogy is absurd on so many levels. In this case, she's not expecting "whatever she wants." She's expecting basic birth control medicine from her Gynecologist. Almost any woman would be shocked and offended by that response. And, yes, to best avoid unwanted pregnancy birth control is a medical need. We don't go to doctors for food and shelter.

And probably within the next year or so, I plan on getting a vasectomy. That still doesn't give me the right to demand that a urologist perform the procedure on me, regardless of whether he wants to offer said service or not. If I went to one and he/she said they don't perform them, it would never occur to me to try to force them to or expect that they should be forced. I'd just go somewhere else.

While I agree that this should have been made known to the patient upfront, I still don't disagree with the principle that going into a field obligates a doctor to perform any and every possible procedure or prescribe any medicine that could possibly fall under that umbrella. And frankly, I don't think it should be require a religious reason to not offer certain services. So long as you state what you do and don't do, the patient is free to decide whether they want to come to you or go elsewhere. If a urologist wants to focus on treating diseases, malfunctions and other problems but not do vasectomies, so be it. If a gynecologist wants to focus on diseases and issues like cancer, prolapse, infections and general reproductive health but not on abortions or birth control, that is their right as well. There's nothing wrong with ordering one's practice around those efforts which seek to help a patient's body function as it should rather than things that stop it from functioning as it was designed.

Your claim that she has no understanding of why religion is important to people based on this small snippet is as closeminded of a statement as I've heard on here and reflects your own bias. She didn't hire a doctor to defer to his preferences for her life, she hired him to do what almost every other Gynecologist does. It's amazing that you find her to be the insensitive one her.

I think he was wrong to not inform her of what services he provided and didn't provide up front. In that situation he should have not charged her for an office visit nor filed it with insurance so she could find another doctor. But to expect, nay, demand that someone do something for you, conscience be damned is wrong.

As long as you grossly overstate my position any attempt at reasonable discussion is pointless. I might as well be engaging with Blue.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Your analogy is absurd on so many levels. In this case, she's not expecting "whatever she wants." She's expecting basic birth control medicine from her Gynecologist. Almost any woman would be shocked and offended by that response. And, yes, to best avoid unwanted pregnancy birth control is a medical need. We don't go to doctors for food and shelter.

And probably within the next year or so, I plan on getting a vasectomy. That still doesn't give me the right to demand that a urologist perform the procedure on me, regardless of whether he wants to offer said service or not. If I went to one and he/she said they don't perform them, it would never occur to me to try to force them to or expect that they should be forced. I'd just go somewhere else.

While I agree that this should have been made known to the patient upfront, I still don't disagree with the principle that going into a field obligates a doctor to perform any and every possible procedure or prescribe any medicine that could possibly fall under that umbrella. And frankly, I don't think it should be require a religious reason to not offer certain services. So long as you state what you do and don't do, the patient is free to decide whether they want to come to you or go elsewhere. If a urologist wants to focus on treating diseases, malfunctions and other problems but not do vasectomies, so be it. If a gynecologist wants to focus on diseases and issues like cancer, prolapse, infections and general reproductive health but not on abortions or birth control, that is their right as well. There's nothing wrong with ordering one's practice around those efforts which seek to help a patient's body function as it should rather than things that stop it from functioning as it was designed.

Your claim that she has no understanding of why religion is important to people based on this small snippet is as closeminded of a statement as I've heard on here and reflects your own bias. She didn't hire a doctor to defer to his preferences for her life, she hired him to do what almost every other Gynecologist does. It's amazing that you find her to be the insensitive one her.

I think he was wrong to not inform her of what services he provided and didn't provide up front. In that situation he should have not charged her for an office visit nor filed it with insurance so she could find another doctor. But to expect, nay, demand that someone do something for you, conscience be damned is wrong.

As long as you grossly overstate my position any attempt at reasonable discussion is pointless. I might as well be engaging with Blue.

Then restate your position on this matter so I'm clear.

To me you seem to be arguing that if one goes into gynecology or urology, that they should offer whatever services are possible under that umbrella. I am maintaining that so long as the doctor makes it known to potential patients up front what services they offer and will not offer, they should be able to practice in a chosen field without being compelled to offer everything. If a patient wants a service that one doctor doesn't provide for whatever reason, their alternative is to seek out a different doctor that does.

If I've misunderstood you and you actually agree with this take, simply say so.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Your analogy is absurd on so many levels. In this case, she's not expecting "whatever she wants." She's expecting basic birth control medicine from her Gynecologist. Almost any woman would be shocked and offended by that response. And, yes, to best avoid unwanted pregnancy birth control is a medical need. We don't go to doctors for food and shelter.

And probably within the next year or so, I plan on getting a vasectomy. That still doesn't give me the right to demand that a urologist perform the procedure on me, regardless of whether he wants to offer said service or not. If I went to one and he/she said they don't perform them, it would never occur to me to try to force them to or expect that they should be forced. I'd just go somewhere else.

While I agree that this should have been made known to the patient upfront, I still don't disagree with the principle that going into a field obligates a doctor to perform any and every possible procedure or prescribe any medicine that could possibly fall under that umbrella. And frankly, I don't think it should be require a religious reason to not offer certain services. So long as you state what you do and don't do, the patient is free to decide whether they want to come to you or go elsewhere. If a urologist wants to focus on treating diseases, malfunctions and other problems but not do vasectomies, so be it. If a gynecologist wants to focus on diseases and issues like cancer, prolapse, infections and general reproductive health but not on abortions or birth control, that is their right as well. There's nothing wrong with ordering one's practice around those efforts which seek to help a patient's body function as it should rather than things that stop it from functioning as it was designed.

Your claim that she has no understanding of why religion is important to people based on this small snippet is as closeminded of a statement as I've heard on here and reflects your own bias. She didn't hire a doctor to defer to his preferences for her life, she hired him to do what almost every other Gynecologist does. It's amazing that you find her to be the insensitive one her.

I think he was wrong to not inform her of what services he provided and didn't provide up front. In that situation he should have not charged her for an office visit nor filed it with insurance so she could find another doctor. But to expect, nay, demand that someone do something for you, conscience be damned is wrong.

As long as you grossly overstate my position any attempt at reasonable discussion is pointless. I might as well be engaging with Blue.

Then restate your position on this matter so I'm clear.

To me you seem to be arguing that if one goes into gynecology or urology, that they should offer whatever services are possible under that umbrella. I am maintaining that so long as the doctor makes it known to potential patients up front what services they offer and will not offer, they should be able to practice in a chosen field without being compelled to offer everything. If a patient wants a service that one doctor doesn't provide for whatever reason, their alternative is to seek out a different doctor that does.

If I've misunderstood you and you actually agree with this take, simply say so.

Did I say that ?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Did I say that ?

Your responses, to me, implied it. Particularly when you start off like this:

There are many specialties in medicine and few involve prescribing birth control. A doctor that isn't willing to serve his clients' basic needs isn't performing his job in an ethical manner.

If I've gotten the wrong idea based on this and subsequent responses, simply state your position on the matter with an eye toward distinguishing it from what I've gleaned.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Did I say that ?

Your responses, to me, implied it. Particularly when you start off like this:

There are many specialties in medicine and few involve prescribing birth control. A doctor that isn't willing to serve his clients' basic needs isn't performing his job in an ethical manner.

If I've gotten the wrong idea based on this and subsequent responses, simply state your position on the matter with an eye toward distinguishing it from what I've gleaned.

I don't expect a doctor to perform abortions, but getting a pill that prevents unwanted conception is something any gynecologist needs to be willing to do-- unless they want to work in a religious setting and are unequivocally clear about the limits of their practice. Any doctor that seeks to limit patient options of standard medical practices such as birth control pills without being abundantly clear up front is acting unethically in my opinion. A patient shouldn't have to schedule an appointment, take time from work, wait to see the doctor and then get a mini sermon. Advertise yourself as a doctor who insists that all patients be content to live within the confines of your religion. If one wants to limit their practice, then limit the practice in a very clear way.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Did I say that ?

Your responses, to me, implied it. Particularly when you start off like this:

There are many specialties in medicine and few involve prescribing birth control. A doctor that isn't willing to serve his clients' basic needs isn't performing his job in an ethical manner.

If I've gotten the wrong idea based on this and subsequent responses, simply state your position on the matter with an eye toward distinguishing it from what I've gleaned.

I don't expect a doctor to perform abortions, but getting a pill that prevents unwanted conception is something any gynecologist needs to be willing to do-- unless they want to work in a religious setting and are unequivocally clear about the limits of their practice. Any doctor that seeks to limit patient options of standard medical practices such as birth control pills without being abundantly clear up front is acting unethically in my opinion. A patient shouldn't have to schedule an appointment, take time from work, wait to see the doctor and then get a mini sermon. Advertise yourself as a doctor who insists that all patients be content to live within the confines of your religion. If one wants to limit their practice, then limit the practice in a very clear way.

So we essentially agree? You would prefer that doctors prescribe BC pills regardless of their beliefs but don't think they should be required to so long as they are upfront about their policies with patients and potential patients?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Did I say that ?

Your responses, to me, implied it. Particularly when you start off like this:

There are many specialties in medicine and few involve prescribing birth control. A doctor that isn't willing to serve his clients' basic needs isn't performing his job in an ethical manner.

If I've gotten the wrong idea based on this and subsequent responses, simply state your position on the matter with an eye toward distinguishing it from what I've gleaned.

I don't expect a doctor to perform abortions, but getting a pill that prevents unwanted conception is something any gynecologist needs to be willing to do-- unless they want to work in a religious setting and are unequivocally clear about the limits of their practice. Any doctor that seeks to limit patient options of standard medical practices such as birth control pills without being abundantly clear up front is acting unethically in my opinion. A patient shouldn't have to schedule an appointment, take time from work, wait to see the doctor and then get a mini sermon. Advertise yourself as a doctor who insists that all patients be content to live within the confines of your religion. If one wants to limit their practice, then limit the practice in a very clear way.

So we essentially agree? You would prefer that doctors prescribe BC pills regardless of their beliefs but don't think they should be required to so long as they are upfront about their policies with patients and potential patients?

I still think it is unethical for a gynecologist to not prescribe birth control for non health related reasons, but if they are consistently and abundantly clear about the limits of their practice , that shouldn't arise.