Doctors with moral obligations

[Tkill93]

I read an article recently about how doctors have the right to refuse to prescribe birth control and emergency contraception if it goes against their moral beliefs. The article was unbiased and did present both sides of the topic. Some key points I have been pondering:

 

Should a doctor really be able to refuse any treatment available/requested? (currently they are)

Should a doctor be required to at least inform the patient of the treatments available regardless of whether they are willing to prescribe it? (currently they do not even have to inform patients of these treatments and some go home not knowing all of their options)

Should a doctor be required to prescribe something they feel is morally wrong?

If so, does this mean people with different moral values can't be doctors?

Can the patient just be referred to someone else who will write the prescription? (in some instances this will cause the patient to have to reschedule and travel further to receive treatment)

Is it fair in rape cases for the victim to feel even more helpless because they cannot receive emergency contraception?

Is it fair for doctors to force their personal beliefs upon their patients?

How far can they go? Currently doctors are protected from administering ANY treatments they feel is morally incorrect, what if someone is bleeding to death in the ER and the doctor on duty is morally opposed to blood transfusions? (a bit extreme but seriously, how far is too far?)

Should doctors who have any kind of moral obligations be flagged with some kind of title so people know to look elsewhere for their treatments?

If a doctor refuses certain types of treatment based on religious beliefs, isn't that protected under the constitution?

 

To me, there is no answer to this conflict. While I understand the moral opposition to certain treatments, I understand the patient's right to choose to be treated. I don't think this situation is fair for the doctor or the patient...

[The Slime Lord]

This is just my opinion. It's a doctor's job to help their patients. If they aren't helping them/helping them to the fullest, then they aren't doing their job/aren't doing it well.

[Static]

Depends if its am old client or not, they can refuse service to someone who signs up and validates that this is ok with the patient. A doctor MAY NOT do this if the patient has been with them already, and is coming in for something, and arbitrarily refuse service to someone who is relying on them.

[Quicksilver]

Although an article may appear to be biased, it still holds an opinion and thought both sides may be presented, judgement is usually passed anyway. For my own belief, I believe that patient doctor confidentiality is there for a reason and that though doctors should most certainly be allowed to refuse certain medications, they also have the responsibility to discuss their reasoning with their patient. I also find it quite honourable when someone sticks to their beliefs despite the possibility they may be frowned upon. In this case, I believe that once again, it is the responsibility of the doctor to at least help their patient seek a second opinion if they are still quite adamant about a decision. I won't answer your rape example because that's a little more complicated. You'll get sidetracked with other issues too easily.

 

Most of your other questions can also be applied to my opinion but IMO it's really just determining between rights and responsibilities.

[HORUS]

doctors should NEVER be aloud to deny treatment to anyone. thats ridiculous.

[Static]

Should a doctor really be able to refuse any treatment available/requested? (currently they are)

 

They may, but they may NOT CUT OFF treatment, like if a patient was percribed treatment from THEM, and they have some moral change of heart, he cant cut them short, lest get sued for millions.

 

Should a doctor be required to at least inform the patient of the treatments available regardless of whether they are willing to prescribe it? (currently they do not even have to inform patients of these treatments and some go home not knowing all of their options)

 

I dunno, I think they should be OBLIGATED too, but not forced too.

 

Should a doctor be required to prescribe something they feel is morally wrong?

 

No, unless the patient is going to die, AND theres an alternative, other than the law of attraction. xD

 

If so, does this mean people with different moral values can't be doctors?

 

In a perfect world, there wouldnt be anti contraception people, but for now, anyone can pursue there passion.

 

Can the patient just be referred to someone else who will write the prescription? (in some instances this will cause the patient to have to reschedule and travel further to receive treatment)

 

IF the doctors sees fit, and the patient odesnt like the alternative

 

Is it fair in rape cases for the victim to feel even more helpless because they cannot receive emergency contraception?

 

Rape cases can go to an abortion clinic. Theres no worries there :)

 

Is it fair for doctors to force their personal beliefs upon their patients?

 

No, and espicially not in a way that demotes the patients personal beliefs. Business world Son, theres different ethics there.

 

How far can they go? Currently doctors are protected from administering ANY treatments they feel is morally incorrect, what if someone is bleeding to death in the ER and the doctor on duty is morally opposed to blood transfusions? (a bit extreme but seriously, how far is too far?)

 

Another doctor should take their place. A doctor who wont trandfuse blood needs therapy. Nuff said

 

Should doctors who have any kind of moral obligations be flagged with some kind of title so people know to look elsewhere for their treatments?

 

I would Love if they had to be. I think it would be good.

 

If a doctor refuses certain types of treatment based on religious beliefs, isn't that protected under the constitution?

 

Not to my knowledge, but then again, achlohol (spg? xD) was banned in the USA in the constitution, so who knows.