RubySoho
Winston
Faith, M.D. - Mixing Medicine and Religion
June 22nd 2007 21:30
I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly when the lunatics took over the asylum here in America. Things have changed, to be sure. But that change did not happen in an instant. No, it seems to me that, inch by inch, we're slowly cutting off portions of our common sense like so much dead wood. We cut a little at a time, ever so subtly, so that when we finally notice how wrong things have gotten, it comes as a tremendous shock. Yes, things have changed. How else to explain this?
Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care
If you click on the link above, you will be directed to a news article that is, in my opinion, positively chilling. It seems that more and more doctors are opting to exercise what is referred to as the "conscience clause". This term pertains to laws which allow doctors to refuse to administer certain types of treatment on religious grounds. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of the time these cases involve doctors refusing to comply with patient requests for birth control, emergency contraception, or abortion.
The first example cited in the article above involves a rape victim. Traumatized and terrified, she nonetheless had the presence of mind to go to the hospital. During the course of her exam, she remembered to request emergency contraception (a very sensible request considering she was, by her estimation, mid-cycle). Imagine her shock when the doctor attending her refused to prescribe the drug on the basis that it was against his personal religious convictions. Apparently, forcing a rape victim to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy resulting from a violent crime is OK, however.
It gets worse. Take the example of Kathleen Hutchins, a patient in New Hampshire whose water broke after 14 weeks. At this stage, survival for the fetus was completely impossible, and leaving the fetus in the womb would endanger Kathleen. The solution was obvious: the fetus had to be removed. Unfortunately for Kathleen, the hospital at which she sought treatment was a Catholic operated institution. The rules were very strict: absolutely no abortion procedures, for any reason, unless the mother's health was immediately in jeopardy. This line from the article says it all: "I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life," Dr. Goldner remembers. "They said, 'Why don't you wait until she has an infection or she gets a fever?' They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy." The risks were known. The fact that she would get sick was a given. Instead of heading that off, the hospital actually suggested waiting until she got an infection, and then deciding whether or not to do the procedure. By their religious "logic", it made more sense to allow Kathleen to continue to carry a completely non-viable fetus and thus risk her own health than to abort the fetus and spare Kathleen the risk of serious complications. Isn't the doctor's creed "do no harm"?
Amusingly enough, another doctor cited that phrase as justification for refusing treatment:
"The physician's number-one creed is 'First, do no harm,' " says Sandy Christiansen, M.D., an ob/gyn in Frederick, Maryland, who is active in the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, a 16,000-member group for health care professionals based in Bristol, Tennessee. "I know that life begins at conception, and that each person has inherent value. That includes the life of the unborn." Dr. Christiansen says she will not give abortion referrals, opposes EC and, while she has prescribed birth control, is reconsidering the morality of that position. "Doctors are people, too," she adds. "We have to be able to leave the hospital and live with ourselves. If you feel in your heart an action would cause harm to somebody — born or unborn — it's legitimate to decline to participate."
So, what Dr. Christiansen is really saying is "do no harm" to an embryo, but to hell with the fully grown, sentient woman carrying it. Perhaps I'm simply being obtuse, but how else can one interpret that statement? Refusing to treat someone based on misguided religious principles is doing harm. There is no way around that. What Dr. Christiansen and her ilk are doing is redefining harm to suit their own agendas. Unfortunately for the women involved, the definition of harm that these "morally guided" doctors favor has no room in it for them.
Another example cited in this article involves a single woman who was planning on adopting. A component of her adoption process included a physical, to ensure adoption officials that she was healthy enough to care for a child. During the physical, it came up that she was unmarried, at which point the doctor refused to complete the physical. Said the doctor, "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."
My understanding of the medical profession was that doctors exist to provide needed and requested medical services, not to proselytize or dole out service based on who meets their moral code. In the example above, the doctor has one job and one job only; to provide a physical exam. The woman's suitability as an adoptive parent is for the adoption agency to decide. This doctor's refusal is completely ridiculous, akin to a Muslim clerk at Sears refusing to sell you a refrigerator because he learns that you intend to keep beer in it.
Giving doctors carte blanche to withhold whatever treatment they see fit, based on their personal religious views, is, simply put, madness. Religious views belong in church, not in public hospitals. It's bad enough that the number of hospitals run by religious organizations continues to increase all the time; the more hospitals are controlled by churches, the more widespread this trend will become. But, those hospitals aside, there is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior in a secular hospital. Doctors, you swore an oath to treat patients as they need and request, not as you see fit according to what the Bible (or the Torah or the Koran) says. You are not morally superior to the people you treat. You may not like their decisions. You may disagree with them. That is where your power ends. Refusal to treat patients based on religious views amounts to smug self-righteousness. The legacy of "conscience clause" refusals is inconvenience, outrage, mental trauma, elevated costs for patients, and endangered health. Hippocratic oath? Sounds more hypocritical to me.
Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care
If you click on the link above, you will be directed to a news article that is, in my opinion, positively chilling. It seems that more and more doctors are opting to exercise what is referred to as the "conscience clause". This term pertains to laws which allow doctors to refuse to administer certain types of treatment on religious grounds. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of the time these cases involve doctors refusing to comply with patient requests for birth control, emergency contraception, or abortion.
The first example cited in the article above involves a rape victim. Traumatized and terrified, she nonetheless had the presence of mind to go to the hospital. During the course of her exam, she remembered to request emergency contraception (a very sensible request considering she was, by her estimation, mid-cycle). Imagine her shock when the doctor attending her refused to prescribe the drug on the basis that it was against his personal religious convictions. Apparently, forcing a rape victim to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy resulting from a violent crime is OK, however.
It gets worse. Take the example of Kathleen Hutchins, a patient in New Hampshire whose water broke after 14 weeks. At this stage, survival for the fetus was completely impossible, and leaving the fetus in the womb would endanger Kathleen. The solution was obvious: the fetus had to be removed. Unfortunately for Kathleen, the hospital at which she sought treatment was a Catholic operated institution. The rules were very strict: absolutely no abortion procedures, for any reason, unless the mother's health was immediately in jeopardy. This line from the article says it all: "I was told I could not admit her unless there was a risk to her life," Dr. Goldner remembers. "They said, 'Why don't you wait until she has an infection or she gets a fever?' They were asking me to do something other than the standard of care. They wanted me to put her health in jeopardy." The risks were known. The fact that she would get sick was a given. Instead of heading that off, the hospital actually suggested waiting until she got an infection, and then deciding whether or not to do the procedure. By their religious "logic", it made more sense to allow Kathleen to continue to carry a completely non-viable fetus and thus risk her own health than to abort the fetus and spare Kathleen the risk of serious complications. Isn't the doctor's creed "do no harm"?
Amusingly enough, another doctor cited that phrase as justification for refusing treatment:
"The physician's number-one creed is 'First, do no harm,' " says Sandy Christiansen, M.D., an ob/gyn in Frederick, Maryland, who is active in the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, a 16,000-member group for health care professionals based in Bristol, Tennessee. "I know that life begins at conception, and that each person has inherent value. That includes the life of the unborn." Dr. Christiansen says she will not give abortion referrals, opposes EC and, while she has prescribed birth control, is reconsidering the morality of that position. "Doctors are people, too," she adds. "We have to be able to leave the hospital and live with ourselves. If you feel in your heart an action would cause harm to somebody — born or unborn — it's legitimate to decline to participate."
So, what Dr. Christiansen is really saying is "do no harm" to an embryo, but to hell with the fully grown, sentient woman carrying it. Perhaps I'm simply being obtuse, but how else can one interpret that statement? Refusing to treat someone based on misguided religious principles is doing harm. There is no way around that. What Dr. Christiansen and her ilk are doing is redefining harm to suit their own agendas. Unfortunately for the women involved, the definition of harm that these "morally guided" doctors favor has no room in it for them.
Another example cited in this article involves a single woman who was planning on adopting. A component of her adoption process included a physical, to ensure adoption officials that she was healthy enough to care for a child. During the physical, it came up that she was unmarried, at which point the doctor refused to complete the physical. Said the doctor, "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."
My understanding of the medical profession was that doctors exist to provide needed and requested medical services, not to proselytize or dole out service based on who meets their moral code. In the example above, the doctor has one job and one job only; to provide a physical exam. The woman's suitability as an adoptive parent is for the adoption agency to decide. This doctor's refusal is completely ridiculous, akin to a Muslim clerk at Sears refusing to sell you a refrigerator because he learns that you intend to keep beer in it.
Giving doctors carte blanche to withhold whatever treatment they see fit, based on their personal religious views, is, simply put, madness. Religious views belong in church, not in public hospitals. It's bad enough that the number of hospitals run by religious organizations continues to increase all the time; the more hospitals are controlled by churches, the more widespread this trend will become. But, those hospitals aside, there is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior in a secular hospital. Doctors, you swore an oath to treat patients as they need and request, not as you see fit according to what the Bible (or the Torah or the Koran) says. You are not morally superior to the people you treat. You may not like their decisions. You may disagree with them. That is where your power ends. Refusal to treat patients based on religious views amounts to smug self-righteousness. The legacy of "conscience clause" refusals is inconvenience, outrage, mental trauma, elevated costs for patients, and endangered health. Hippocratic oath? Sounds more hypocritical to me.
| 85 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by David
The lunatics haven't just taken over the asylum. They've taken over the world.
Great read.
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Yes, as you say, it's all gone a little crazy, false logic has forfeited the day.
However, these things are very complex but they are made even more complex by some very strange people.
Well expressed post as always, but there is never an easy solution.
katyzzz
Comment by Wendi
My view is this: If you can't perform medical procedures, you shouldn't be in the medical profession. End of story. Granted, not every doctor should be required to perform abortions as a form of birth control, but in cases where there's no hope for the fetus and the mother is at risk, there really shouldn't be a question in the matter.
When I used to work at a grocery store, there were cashiers under eighteen who weren't allowed to sell cigarettes or alcohol. The solution was simple... get on the intercom and call another cashier or manager to the register to complete the transaction. I believe hospitals should offer a similar method... if the attending physician finds it against his/her morals to perform a procedure, then call in another physician who can.
Disturbing.
W
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
MOST physicians who refuse care will offer a referral (although there was a small but significant percentage polled who indicated that they felt no obligation to offer alternative care at all). However, in rural areas, where there are fewer doctors, a referral might mean traveling a long distance away. Under normal circumstances this means added expense, time off from work, additional insurance claims, etc. In an emergency (such as the rape example) it is completely unconscionable.
Any doctors who can deny some of these patients the care (and compassion) they need and call that "doing no harm" need to, as you said, seriously evaluate their chosen profession.
Thanks for the comment!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Thanks for stopping by
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Appreciate the feedback
Comment by Onesnap
I really am curious to see Moore's latest documentary Sicko. I think the healthcare system is going down the toilet and perhaps has already gone down.
But yes, folks who decide not to get specific medical care based on their religious background has always been strange to me. If you're dying and something can save you why just die? And the whole silent birth thing with those nutjobs like Tom Cruise is all such bullshit.
As far as unmarried women getting denied adoption...better stick the kids in horrible foster homes instead of with an independent single woman, right? I used to work with a woman who just had a kid out of wedlock...but it was a test tube baby so that made it acceptable. So one way or another the unmarried woman will get a kid if she really wants one.
Comment by JoshZ
this is a tough one. But at the end of the day, the doctors have given oath. If they are christians, they must allow that their yes is their yes and that their no is their no.
Good read, good post.
JZ
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Glad you enjoyed the post!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I would suggest that religious people drawn to the medical profession focus on missionary work, or work in other private sector institutions funded by church groups. Patients in secular hospitals should have access to the full range of available treatment at all times, without having to worry about running into this sort of obstacle.
Thanks for dropping by! Always good to get your opinion