Readers’ Responses to Our Question (141)

The physician’s creed is “Above all, do no harm.” In addition, the patient's right to choose treatment should be respected.

Recent court decisions:
Two court decisions handed down in the state of Illinois, U.S.A., in November and December of 1997 were significant. In the first, Mary Jones, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, was awarded $150,000 in damages because she had been transfused in 1993 with two units of blood despite her clear objection to this form of treatment. This is the largest sum ever collected by a Witness for emotional harm suffered as the result of an unwanted blood transfusion.
The second case involved the then pregnant Witness Darlene Brown, who was forcibly transfused for the sake of her 34-week fetus. On December 31, 1997, the Illinois Appellate Court explained its decision by saying that "a blood transfusion is an invasive medical procedure that interrupts a competent adult's bodily integrity." The Appellate Court summarized its ruling by saying that "under the law of this State, . . . we cannot impose a legal obligation upon a pregnant woman to consent to an invasive medical procedure."
On February 9, 1998, the Tokyo High Court reversed the ruling of a lower court, which had ruled that a doctor was justified in giving Misae Takeda a blood transfusion during a surgery in 1992. The High Court declared that "the patient's right to choose treatment should be respected. It was illegal to administer a blood transfusion." Misae Takeda was awarded damages of 550,000 yen ($4,200).

The physician’s creed is “Above all, do no harm.” In addition, the patient's right to choose treatment should be respected.

Recent court decisions:
Two court decisions handed down in the state of Illinois, U.S.A., in November and December of 1997 were significant. In the first, Mary Jones, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, was awarded $150,000 in damages because she had been transfused in 1993 with two units of blood despite her clear objection to this form of treatment. This is the largest sum ever collected by a Witness for emotional harm suffered as the result of an unwanted blood transfusion.
The second case involved the then pregnant Witness Darlene Brown, who was forcibly transfused for the sake of her 34-week fetus. On December 31, 1997, the Illinois Appellate Court explained its decision by saying that "a blood transfusion is an invasive medical procedure that interrupts a competent adult's bodily integrity." The Appellate Court summarized its ruling by saying that "under the law of this State, . . . we cannot impose a legal obligation upon a pregnant woman to consent to an invasive medical procedure."
On February 9, 1998, the Tokyo High Court reversed the ruling of a lower court, which had ruled that a doctor was justified in giving Misae Takeda a blood transfusion during a surgery in 1992. The High Court declared that "the patient's right to choose treatment should be respected. It was illegal to administer a blood transfusion." Misae Takeda was awarded damages of 550,000 yen ($4,200).

""Are physicians' primary obligations to their patients or their religious convictions?""

If a physician is really obligated to the welfare of their patients then why oh why are OB/GYNs not obligated to provide relevant, up to date information and resources concerning women whose unborn children may have a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome or other condition? Some Dr's have a conviction that all unborn children with congenital birth defects are unwanted mistakes. Take the word "religious" out of the question and the question still remains. Convictions are convictions, whether they are religious or not. If an OB/GYN would really look out for patient welfare first they would bend over backwards to give a prenatally diagnosed patient all the most up to date information, resources and connections regardless of their personal conviction that the pregnancy should end.

Al-Arian has been revealed for what he is.

When Muslims place liars on high, they put their ethical integrity in the mud.

3de2b041g86 g3zg82vtfddy1c [URL=http://www.726286.com/852730.html] f0mrfpop56zgch4 [/URL] 1y0khczbt2r57nl3

4Sh4ie U cool ))

4Sh4ie U cool ))

There was a time only a few generations back when doctors quietly set seriously deformed babies aside to die naturally. There was a time just a few generations back when people died naturally because of bad life style choices (or a bad set of genes, various addictions and diseases) in addition to old age and the failure of vital parts due to age. Now we have technology available to the medical community that is enabling them, with the support of the medial industry and human worshipping religious community, to take us down the path of personal bankruptcy in the name of health care. Most of the money spent on medical care during an average life is spend during the first and last months of life. Our schools are heavily burdened with the baby sitting of "souls" (a theoretical construct) that are in living bodies but otherwise nearly disconnected from life's activities as most of us experience them. One on one support for uneducable and non-contributing people seriously diminishes the education available to the whole range of other students struggling in classrooms with 25 to 35 students per teacher. It is resented by many in the education community as they see the education deprivation that results for the many, especially the majority average. There are some programs for the gifted and talented, and for the culturally deprived, but far too little for the many in the middle. We can do only what we can afford. With the onset of energy and economic descent slated to begin within about five years, it is likely that human life will begin to be devalued. Remember, we can only do what we can afford, and values tend to get adjusted to that fact. Get used to it, it is part of our human history. Peace.

Who ever keeps posting the repetitive post regarding the web sites you have visited on electronics, jewelry, house furnishing and other tangible items, you need help.

Addiction to the internet is a real problem for some people and it appears that you might fit in that category. Please get help.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

Good Site . Nice work.

buy soma

0zh1klls6 j1nso8tle5vufop5 4z4rrjong

BRINGING PROOF FROM YOUR OWN BIBLE BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN IT SO YOU NEED IT TO VARIFY, AS MUSLIMS PROOF AND WHAT WE BELIEVE IS QURAN.

Lies or Truth: Evidence speaks for it self !

1- There is not a single verse in ANY VERSION of Bible where Jesus (A.S) said, worship me OR I'm god. Instead he said,” I speak what I hear from father”, “My Father is greater than me."

2- Again word "Trinity" is not mentioned in ANY VERSION of the Bible. The closest verse to trinity that,” Father, Holy Ghost & spirit is one" is thrown out in your REVISED VERSION of Bible. As all your high priests said,” It was a concoction, fabrication, addition, a lie in the Bible, as no such verse is found in the most ancient scriptures".
So please ask your own priests who is lying and fabricating??????

3-We Muslims FOLLOW more in Jesus (A.S) commandments then you Christians:

(You say, you love Jesus (A.S.), but you disobey his every commandment).

4-From Adam to Jesus (PBUT) MENTIONED IN YOUR BIBLE, all prophets when prayed to God, they prostrated like we Muslims.
Do you follow Jesus, how to pray?

5- In ALL Bibles more than 3 times Jesus said swine-pig is forbidden to eat. We Muslims follow him, but you Christians follow PAUL and disobey Jesus (A.S.) commandments.

6- More than 4 occasions in ALL Bibles Jesus (A.S) told wine has bad attributes on the humans. But Paul quotes the "FIRST MIRACLE OF JESUS" and since then wine is flowing like water in Christendom and NOT AT ALL in Muslimdom. (Bible said water tasted like wine and never said turned into wine).

7- Jesus said," I came to keep all the commandments of the God and not to break them". But you Christians broke EACH AND EVERY of them.
Hale-aluu-Yaa to Church, Paul, Mathew, John and Luke!!!!!

8-According to Christian Bible first miracle of Jesus (A.S.) was turning water taste like wine and recovering the shortage in the gathering. But according to Quran the first miracle of Jesus was talking to Jews when he was infant in his mother’s arms.

When after birth, Mary came:
According to the BIBLE she told the Jews that she hear voices and then had a child birth. Do you believe your daughter or sister, if she come and tell you she had birth after hearing voices? Do you think when “IF” Mary had told that to the Jews, they would have believed her???
But Quran tells that the Jews accused her, she knows that Jesus (A.S) was the miraculous birth. So she told the Jews ask the infant. And miraculously Jesus (A.S) talked to them and told them that I’m the messenger from God, therefore be nice and respectful to my mother as she is among the highest of the pious. Quran gives highest respect to Mary, even there is a complete chapter by her name in Quran. You have chapters named by Mathew, Luke, John or lying Paul and many others but not a single by his mothers name Mary.
Which version would you like to tell to your children, HEARING VOICES AND GETTING PRAGNANT or MIRACULOUS TALK????

9-Christians says Jesus (A.S) was the BEGOTTEN SON. What are you trying to apply here? So what you are trying to put in all the humans throat is that the All Mighty God Who made every thing miraculously from Adam to every thing of this world needs to come done to seed…. (God forgive us for such satanic thinking). Allah tells in Quran that when He wants to do some thing, He just says and it happens. He begets not nor He begotten. Human miracles are not the proof of any kind of divinity. Jesus (A.S) was the prophet like all other prophets with miracles.

10-Christians says Jesus (A.S) get crucified for there sins. And a son of god (not mentioned any where in the Bible he himself never said that). And dozens of Bible verses proving that he was not died through crucifixion. You Christians are also divided about it.
So basically what you are making to swallow us (the whole human race) is that the whole nation rape, kill and do bad atrocities and when brought for justice there King hang his own son instead of punishing them. IT DOES REALLY MAKE SENSE! Hale- alu- Yaa PAUL and the greatest deceiving of the human history.

11- Jesus says “ He is jealous God only pray to Him”. But Christians are eager to make partner to Him. We Muslims only pray to God and don’t make any partners to Him.

So I am asking you a question:

Next time does Jesus (A.S) come to the house of people who are obeying his commandments OR who are TOTALLY disobeying his commandments???

If a child survives an abortion, would abortion enthusiasts prefer that the abortionist dismember the child outside of the womb as he had attempted to do inside the womb or would they prefer that the abortionist kill the child outside of the womb by sticking a catheter into the skull of the child so that the abortionist could kill the child by sucking the child's brain out as partial birth abortionists do or would they prefer that the abortionist merely throw the living child into the trash can as he would do if he had successfully killed the child inside the womb? Also, if the abortionist and the mother who attempted to kill her child eat the child outside of the womb, do abortion enthusiasts consider that to be cannibalism or would they still "think" that the child was a "tomato"?

Every day, thousands of people are turned down for finance because they have past [url=lendadviser.com]faxless payday loan[/url] or no credit history.

Many business managers and principals entrusted with [url=college-paid.com]free student loan consolidation[/url], have had problems with their own finances...

The question betrays a fundamental defect.

Such a question and its discussion should take place prior to a person becoming a Medical Doctor and not after.

French parliament has shown that several question marks hang over the accounts of [url=cash-advance-service.com]equity home loan quote[/url]

Follow these guidelines and you will build that new home with little, or no, problems. [url=home-improvement-lending.com]flooring kitchen[/url] can help...

Sounds like your finances are becoming a problem [url=deptmanagment.com]consolidation debt settlement[/url] is the solution. ... 2007 USA Debt Consolidation.
Real debt help is not quick or easy ...

The White House did not immediately respond to queries about the conference call from RAW STORY. Bush did not name any other participants. [url=lendcounselor.com]ohio mortgage[/url]

Sami al Arian used to be a smooth operator. "Allah" made him teflon coated.

He is now a broken man. As you sow: you will reap..

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/224

Al-Arian collecting for JIHAD!

Irregardless of one's political beliefs, those with no regard for our laws should be deported.

It is illegal to collect money for JIHAD organizations on the terror list. If you disagree with this classification, rally peacefully to have the classification changed - YOU DON"T IGNORE THE LAW TO SUIT YOURSELF.

Al-Arian has been revealed for what he is.

When Muslims place liars on high, they put their ethical integrity in the mud.

inba oubdxcsl lrqzicfes gpqohe mvdcoqr jnrgxqowk xopm

inba oubdxcsl lrqzicfes gpqohe mvdcoqr jnrgxqowk xopm

inba oubdxcsl lrqzicfes gpqohe mvdcoqr jnrgxqowk xopm

inba oubdxcsl lrqzicfes gpqohe mvdcoqr jnrgxqowk xopm

Not even his harshest critics suggest Al-Arian has done anything in the last five years that could be even remotely construed as aiding terrorist organizations. The entire controversy sprang from the fact that viewers became enraged after old allegations were re-aired, albeit often in mangled form, by O'Reilly.
USF.

Before firing him, USF placed Al-Arian on paid leave, saying his presence made the campus unsafe and pointing to an avalanche of hate mail and death threats.

But the Gulf Coast hysteria was entirely created by the media. Without the Tampa Tribune, which undertook a dubious seven-year crusade against al-Arian, there would have been no story to begin with. Without "The O'Reilly Factor" -- a showcase for noisy right-wing ranting whose producers apparently didn't even know that Al-Arian had been cleared of charges before they handed him over to their equally ignorant hanging-judge host -- the controversy would never have been revived. Without incendiary, know-nothing Clear Channel radio jocks, led by a gentleman named Bubba the Love Sponge, there would almost certainly have been far fewer USF death threats. And without NBC's sloppy work on "Dateline" there would probably have been no firing.

The Al-Arian story reveals what happens when journalists, abandoning their role as unbiased observers, lead an ignorant, alarmist crusade against suspicious foreigners who in a time of war don't have the power of the press or public sympathy to fight back. It's called a pile-on, and this game first began in Tampa, seven years ago.

so- please folks, the man was exhonorated and cleared by the court system- (but not before his life was ruined by a false accusation)

theres plenty of places here to spread islamophobia but were having a conversation about the topic.

dr fill- my cousin carried a baby to term that dies moments after birth-

i even had a dream about her in california- (she was in pittsburgh) when we hdnt spoken for years and i didnt know she was pregnant- the same night it happened.

she has expressed many times her gratitude that she was able to hold her baby, name it and bury it before he died.

she has taken great solace in this closure experience- religiously we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but i would never presume to tell her how to express her grief-

(she had tried for 10 years to conceive, and cannot now)

it is tragic, and it is life- she has since adopted an unwanted child who was destined for abortion before she stepped in- and he is a bright and happy young adult now.

for every horror story about abortions 'denied' there are corollary happy endings about 'abortions denied'.

no anecdotal incident really 'proves' anything-
it is just life.
personally, i choose to err on the side of life, but - it is my CHOICE- and i make it for myself and no one else.

doctors are supposed to have a respect for life at the very least.

some of the extreme posts illustrate, not respect for life, but doctors who go beyond the bounds of what is in their realm of control.

that is not the issue here-= that is an ethics issue.

like the wording of the person who said the 17 year old was 'compelled' to give birth and breast feed for 4 days.

i imagine that was her choice to breastfeed her baby-
theres no follow up to this alarming story so we dont really know.

people use others suffering for their own twisted agendas (not you)
peACE

"That's just my opinion of course."

DrFill: Thanks for your opinion.

But I have clarity on the subject because -I lived it. I have the veracity of Truth -because we "wore the flesh and walked it out".

Like most women, my young friend had an intrinsic love and desire to protect her unborn. Her choice allowed her to maintain the life of her child to full term, to see her baby's face and to hold and caress and kiss her child. Yes, it was sad. It was also beautiful and so brave. She will never deny her pregnancy and suffer through remembering her due date alone. She will always be the mother of three. No regrets.

Her Dr. came in and delivered her child. After the child was born he left the room. I followed him out and he was leaning against the wall cursing and angry. But when I came to stand beside him -he held my hand and wept. He has since become a dear friend.

Life is not always easy and the easiest choice isn't always the best choice.

victoria faithful with clarity :

I've read every post and I knew exactly where and why the names were chosen. They appeared appropriate at the time and still do.

I also read the info about the grieving process and successful marriage and family. I think the same outcome could have been achieved just as well only sooner by following the doctors advice. That's just my opinion of course.

Certainly we must not be unfair to many good and innocent doctors but one must wonder why they would join groups affiliated with The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, knowing full well that Hamas is declared a terrorist organization in the US.

One article implied a possible link between UK group and someone in Toledo.

Toledo has its own association connected with the Saudi Arabian groups that Al-Arian is a part of (ISNA & MSA).

All these groups seem to be interweaved.

http://www.imanagtc.org

But the former article...there may be trouble brewing in Detroit.

We have to face the reality that the problem is close to home.

Naomi, thanks for the interesting links.

Heres a link to a story I am following:

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=61116

Take a look at the video on this page.

BTW:

Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor (Tampa), was arrested by the United States government in 2003 on charges of funding terrorists.

relevant Newsweek article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19694995/site/newsweek/

Recent Event highlights problem:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/05/when_your_docto.html

dr fill- obviously you didnt read any posts, but just made a snap judgement to align with your predetermined intention-

their names were in response to the one who has a difficult time with the thinking process- and tongue in cheek-

as for the perpetual mourning- you also didnt notice that the mother who gave birth to the child ewent through a grieving process, drew growth from it- and is now the mother of two children-
we can assume her active grieving process has been replaced by motherly love and fulfillment.

dr. fill,

you remind me of a petulant blind man at the louvre. as everyone around him is standing enrapt with awe and savoring the moment. he is saying: i can't see anything or hear anything. there is nothing here.

oh. i grieve for you too. there is a whole aspect of life that you deny and cannot enter into. so sad.

deluded faithhead too and deluded faithhead:

You two have truly chosen appropriate screen names. I can't imagine anything but extended grief for the two subjects of your stories. So sad.

Chiming in..

Eight years ago, the unwed teenage daughter of a friend became pregnant with a fetus that did not develop kidneys or lungs. Her Dr. encouraged a late term abortion.

She called me for advice and support. She had no control over the loss of her child. She could decide when and how that death took place. We spoke of the importance of grieving a loss.

She carried her child to full term and was awake for delivery. Her mother and I were with her. Her child died minutes after birth. She was able to fully grieve her loss and has spoken of the strength her decisions gave her to get through a difficult time.

She is now married with two beautiful children.

Deluded:
**I sure feel better knowing that the woman will be just fine spending the rest of her life not knowing her baby, but instead killed him/her.**

How well can you "know" a baby with no brain? It seems to me that it would have been much less painful for the mother to have been able to terminate the pregnancy. Any adult would have difficulty dealing with such a tragic circumstance, and she was still a child herself.

Hardtimethinking,

Sure, go ahead and blame God for a doctor not doing his job. And tell me what's the difference between an aborted baby and the one that passed away four days later. At least the mom got to share a few intimate moments with their child before the child went Home. But I guess that's my "deluded faithhead" speaking.....Maybe I should put my "reason cap" on instead and save this mom from a life of trouble by saying it's ok to murder her baby before she got to get to know him/her. Yeah that sounds better. I sure feel better knowing that the woman will be just fine spending the rest of her life not knowing her baby, but instead killed him/her.

And you call people with faith "delusional"??

Even in countries where the law permits abortion for rape victims, women who seek the operation can encounter a wall of obstruction. In Peru, a 17-year-old girl discovered that her foetus had anencephaly - meaning that it was going to be born without a brain - but a doctor refused to allow her access to an abortion. She was compelled to give birth and breastfeed the child for four days before its died.

In the Sante Fe province of Argentina, a social worker told the organisation Human Rights Watch about a woman who went into hospital after having an unsafe abortion and was bleeding badly. "A doctor started to examine her, and when he realised, he threw down his instruments and said: 'This is an abortion. You go ahead and die'."

Are there any 'deluded faithheads' out there that would like to spin some 'fantasies' by which we can understand the above faith lead decisions of conscience?

as a person of left of center political leanings and an american muslim - for those who loudly demand that muslims identify themselves as "moderate" (a term imposed on me, and one im not very fond of) i guess that i consdier myself a reasonable person (although religiously practicing and active and perfectly proud of that too)
truly it gets tiring defining and redefining myself for the sake of others comfort levels- but its a courtesy and effort i extend.

i had a conversation with an orthopaedic surgeon (and practicing muslim) about a patient of his. (it was a male here, although not all doctors are male, lest we forget)

he stated that a woman with a fractured spine who was diagnosed as incurable and would never walk again, along with her family, prayed constantly and incredibly amazingly miraculously was able to walk again!

he then went on to say that he used this example in his consultations with all of his patients.
he stated that he did this to give hope to all his patients.

i was appalled.

he is a very good man, but maybe not mature a doctor or person as he may become.

we argued into the night about ethics and faith and bedside manners etc-

my position was that in telling his patients this- some may be given unrealistic expectations as to their own process- and also be set up for a sharp disappointment because this womans case was, well- unique in its rareness.

but that wasnt my basic disagreement, just a practical possibility.

my real discomfiture was to me the slippery level of ultimate culpability.

i feel that in such a case, the onus is put unfairly upon the patient to effect their own miraculous "cure".
the implication being that the other 99% of the patients are spiritually insufficient or undeserving of such a grace.
when in fact they are the norm.

and the repsonsibilty of the efficacy of the surgeon himself is conveniently not a factor in the equation- how can he help it if his patients are too impure to be healed?

i was really outraged that he actually imagined this was a constructive and valid way to practice his art.

not to mention the fact that the added stress to one who is struggling to heal physically- and the emotional pressure a patient would put upon themself- and just plain old blaming the victim-
would actually be a hindrance to their healing process.

and in his rush to accept the cure as miraculous- what scientific information might have been unexplored to explain from a physiological standpoint her recovery, and what other future sufferer might be helped through good old observation and investigation?

well, its not as interesting as abortion or as titillating as other issues, but it is an example of the subtleties of medical ethics and religion intertwining.

his decision making process will continue to draw from his identity as a religious person-

it is not possible to expect him to separate himself into fractured elements of his personality to be the best surgeon he could be-

it is part and parcel of who he is-

to my thinking, it was a way for him to cleanly absolve himself of his deep responsibility to his patients cure.

perhaps it is a coping mechanism also and not a character weakness- but a way of dealing constantly with hopeless situations.

maybe it was he that needed the hope.

Allahuallum. Only the God knows.

peace all

A little off topic. I lived in San Antonio TX for many years. Excluding the military hospitals, and a Univ. of TX. teaching hospital, all the other hospitals are affiliated with the So. Baptist's, Methodist's, or Roman Catholic's. Have always wondered when a medical procedure is in conflict with one of their religious tenets, what do they do?

Until recently, I thought this was primarily a theoretical moral issue for those of us living outside the bible belt, but I discovered how pervasive it actually is twice this past year. I give these examples in the hope that these medical professionals, who can not comprehend how the rest of the population finds appalling their allowing their religion to supercede their patients' rights to knowledge of all medical options and to be free of their proselytizing, understand the repercussions:

1) My family's pediatrician a while back recommended a specialist for my teenager. In looking up the specialist's address and phone number on a search site, I came across a religious medical(?) organization's web site of which this doctor was a listed member. Looking further into this organization, I discovered that its mission was for its members to proselytize to their patiants. I shared this with the pediatrician who was shocked that any medical professional would do that, had never heard of this practice and was certainly unlikely to refer to this doctor again. Needless to say, I found another specialist and ran a search before making an appointment. I'll never know if the first specialist's intent was to convert or just advertise, but all the same, I found it repugnant and acted accordingly.

2) Before I made a counseling appointment, I looked into the credentials of the provider and came across an undergraduate degree from a university I had never heard of. Looking at the university's web site I discovered that it too had a mission of evangelizing and sending students out in the world to convert. An appointment with a medical professional who might take advantage of a vulnerable patient with their religious agenda? Not for me.

While it is illogical to me how religious coersion and undue presure could "win souls" or produce true converts, this seems to be a trend hitting a small but active segment of health care providers of which all of us must be aware. I recommend thorough searches of credentials and affiliations before beginning with a new medical professional, "interviewing" a medical professionals before or at the first appointment on this issue and avoiding medical care at a facility that limits treatment options for non-medical reasons (even if one's medical needs at the time are totally unrelated to those treatment options--you never know when you or your loved ones will need the forbidden treatment). Unfortunately, this precludes utilizing the health care facilities of one major religious group which may offer acceptable care when there is no conflict. But, how can we support facilities that would would abuse a rape victim by not giving the option of a morning after pill?

As I send my children off to college in the coming years, I plan to thoroughly research the available local medical care both within the unversity and in the community and discuss this with them.

Until recently, I thought this was primarily a theoretical moral issue for those of us living outside the bible belt, but I discovered how pervasive it actually is twice this past year. I give these examples in the hope that these medical professionals, who can not comprehend how the rest of the population finds appalling their allowing their religion to supercede their patients' rights to knowledge of all medical options and to be free of their proselytizing, understand the repercussions:

1) My family's pediatrician a while back recommended a specialist for my teenager. In looking up the specialist's address and phone number on a search site, I came across a religious medical(?) organization's web site of which this doctor was a listed member. Looking further into this organization, I discovered that its mission was for its members to proselytize to their patiants. I shared this with the pediatrician who was shocked that any medical professional would do that, had never heard of this practice and was certainly unlikely to refer to this doctor again. Needless to say, I found another specialist and ran a search before making an appointment. I'll never know if the first specialist's intent was to convert or just advertise, but all the same, I found it repugnant and acted accordingly.

2) Before I made a counseling appointment, I looked into the credentials of the provider and came across an undergraduate degree from a university I had never heard of. Looking at the university's web site I discovered that it too had a mission of evangelizing and sending students out in the world to convert. An appointment with a medical professional who might take advantage of a vulnerable patient with their religious agenda? Not for me.

While it is illogical to me how religious coersion and undue presure could "win souls" or produce true converts, this seems to be a trend hitting a small but active segment of health care providers of which all of us must be aware. I recommend thorough searches of credentials and affiliations before beginning with a new medical professional, "interviewing" a medical professionals before or at the first appointment on this issue and avoiding medical care at a facility that limits treatment options for non-medical reasons (even if one's medical needs at the time are totally unrelated to those treatment options--you never know when you or your loved ones will need the forbidden treatment). Unfortunately, this precludes utilizing the health care facilities of one major religious group which may offer acceptable care when there is no conflict. But, how can we support facilities that would would abuse a rape victim by not giving the option of a morning after pill?

As I send my children off to college in the coming years, I plan to thoroughly research the available local medical care both within the unversity and in the community and discuss this with them.

i was responding to this prior comment JONH M.

"Is it possible that physicians are putting their secular insistance that only drugs from drug companies should be prescribed ahead of the health and welfare of their patients?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

if you look at the times we posted, your post youre referring to was not on the board when i posted.

Well, Jesus was okay with the religion thing as long as it didn't get in the way of serving people.
When it did (as it must), He put people first.
It got Him killed.

So, physician, if you are asked to sacrifice your comfortable position with the insurance reimbursements and the private pays and the accolades of those who welcome your healing gift as long as it's separate from your spirit....maybe it's okay for you to bring God to the operating room with you. Separating Him from the life preserving and life saving work you do.....not so much.

Some pharmacists will not fill prescriptions for birth control or RU486 because they believe the products are not medicines. If pregnancy were a dibilitating medical condition, then pregnant women should ride in the handicapped seats on busses and trains. Instead, other passengers give up their seats to them.

Some pharmacists will not fill prescriptions for OxyContin because they believe that stocking the medicine will cause their pharmacy to be burglarized.

Still, if the doctor writes you a prescription for OxyContin, then you probably need to have it filled immediately. So refusing to stock a powerful pain-killer medicine also has a moral angle to it.

John M.
As usual we basically agree. I sympathize with your not wanting to identify with the political types. Believe me, being Catholic puts me in league with lots of stuff I disavow. I think the evangelizing we are all meant to do as Christians is more in the nature of your gentle prodding than the self-righteous hectoring that gets all the media attention.
I really have to give you credit for not giving in to anger and rudeness as I often do.

Hi, Viejita:

I am so sorry I was not clear. I was referring to this post:
"Jay,
As you probably know, pharmacists in a couple of states have recently won lawsuits defending their "right" to refuse to fill prescriptions that they find morally offensive. I think they were defended by a right-wing Christian legal group."

But, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you were right. I'm just sensitive to labeling Evangelicals, since I don't fit that mold all the time.

I know this is a little off topic, but I do