Putting the Patient First: Not All Conscience is Created Equal

titianic fireplace malagigi prerevenge bleat alcae xenial unfiery
http://kyotoajet.com >Kyoto AJET
http://web.tiscali.it/giannisi

Your use of terms like "draft boards" is a little scary!

Would you be willing to spread the word about www.draftresistance.org? It's a site dedicated to shattering the myths surrounding the selective slavery system and building mass civil disobedience to stop the draft before it starts.

Our banner on a website, printing and posting the anti-draft flyer or just telling friends would help.

Thanks!

Scott Kohlhaas

PS. When it comes to the draft, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

hmm... it seems that Thistlethwaite's essay is no longer linked on the panelist list for this topic...

Perhaps this means that the answers were so good that there's no need for further comments!

I have an opinion, but it is an opinion on the framing of the issue rather than a solution to the issue. One of the questions related to postmodern theory is who has the authority to define the truth in a postmodern society where no one establishment has all the answers.

It seems to me that the crux of this issue comes down to *who has authority* to shape medical ethics.

--- Should *legislators* have the power to make decisions related to medical morality? They may not be medically qualified, but they are elected by and represent the opinions of the people of the United States.

--- Should *patients* have the right to decide their own fate on a case by case basis, even if they want to die or kill their fetuses?

--- If the *medical community* has the responsibility to make ethical decisions, and to train individual doctors and pharmacists on these decisions, then perhaps the authority for life-death ethics solely relegated to the profession only... the *medical academia* and *medical practictioners* … This solution could be problematic because it involves neither the church nor the state, but rather another establishment: the medical establishment.

Interesting questions… no clear answer that I can see.

A thought experiment would be to take the issue of medical ethics to the extreme… would you support or reject a pharmacist who refused to dispatch a hypothetical “suicide drug.” Assuming such “suicide drug” were legal in a dystopic future, I personally would consider it appropriate for the pharmacist to take a stand against legal suicide, since I feel suicide violates the “do no harm” ethic.

I have worked in a hospital for over 12 years. I can honestly say that many doctors do what they want even if the patient disagrees. I think that doctors have an ethical responsibility when caring for a patient. If the patient is competent and knows what is going on with their own body then they have the right to make their own decisions. I think doctors should respect patient's rights. If the patient is incompetent they need a proxy to make a decision for them. If that isn't possible the patient should be referred to the hospital's ethics committee.

Most hospitals have an ethics committee that will step in and review the "case" if the physician and patient disagree about the course of treatment. In most cases the nurse can identify when doctors are being unethical and can report it. If doesn't see it and the patient feels this way they should request to speak with someone - - even if it is the hospital's chaplain. A hospital chaplain is trained to work with this type of situation without putting personal beliefs into the mix.

I do think some responsibility falls on the patient. If the patient disagrees with her doctor or pharmacists she has a right to find a new one and that is what they should do.

I have seen too many doctors allow a patient to suffer rather than do anything to make them comfortable because they think they can save them or make them better. This is not always the case, many times physicians get this God complex and think they can cure/heal everyone no matter what the patient has to go through. The patient's rights should always come first.

Terra: **If a Doctor does not want to do abortions..don't go through years of education to be a GYN. Be a Proctologist. If you do not want to hand out all meds proscribed by a doctor...don't be a pharmosist be a dog groomer.**

My thoughts exactly.

Tell me, HeyYou, how would you feel if you went to Outback and ordered a rare steak and baked potato with butter and sour cream, only to have your waiter tell you that he is vegan and believes that the consumption of animal product is a sin, therefore he will not serve you a steak, nor will he serve you butter or sour cream on your baked potato?

Heyyou..
Heathen means people of the heather. And I am a Pagan not a Heathen. The Heathens are Northern Pagans.

You talk like being a heathen is a bad thing. LOL

If a Doctor does not want to do abortions..don't go through years of education to be a GYN. Be a Proctologist. If you do not want to hand out all meds proscribed by a doctor...don't be a pharmosist be a dog groomer.

They know what the work includes as they go into it...their conscious can take a flying leap...

terra

Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Rev. Thistlethwaite brings a good point by highlighting some faulty logic of medical practioners who claim a right of conscious. The ramifications for a soldier who declined orders because they personally found them morally objectionable (with a few obvious exceptions) would be severe. The same should be true for those in the medical field. At the end of the day it is a job of public service, and to serve others implies serving those that may disagree with one's personal perspectives.

Smoke:

Thanks. You're right - it's never an easy decision. But when having another child means taking food out of the mouth of the one you already have, there's not really any other option.

Lepidopteryx – Such a painful decision. I stand behind you 110%. What the anti-choice crowd seems to forget (or not think of) is that a woman does not purposely get pregnant so she can have an abortion. It is not fun (and no, I have never had one but have friends that have).

Ashley – Nicely done! I am a pharmacist and am ashamed of the sanctimonious and condescending attitude of some of my colleagues. The patient and his/her health comes first.

A question for those of you who support a pharmacist blocking patient care… After an abortion a combination of drugs (one being an antibiotic to prevent infection) are prescribed. Can a pharmacist refuse to fill these prescriptions too?

Oral contraceptives are also used for other indications beside birth control such as inducing a period in a woman who has not started her period by her late teens, decrease menstrual cramps (as already mentioned), regulate her cycle, prevent migraines associated with the fluctuation in hormones (I fall into this category) and there are many more.

FYI – the Hippocratic Oath is not really administered anymore. It also has some nasty bits about woman being banned from the field and a prohibition of penetration of the body cavity (ie. surgery).

American medical professionals get their legal authority to practice medicine from our democratically-elected government --regardless of their individual sectarian religious ideology.

You don't get to cherry-pick which medicines and procedures to administer based upon your personal ideology or religious biases; if you want to be a legally-licensed pharmacist or physician you must follow the law.

Anyone who refuses to provide complete and legal medical services should have their license to practice medicine in America revoked, plain and simple. If they want religion-based medicine they can move to Iran.

It's quite clear from the discussion that this issue breaks down somewhere around 85% abortion, 10% contraception and 5% "other". But hey, that points to a pretty simple fix!

-- Physician-wannabees simply choose some other less morally challenging specialty than OBG; just as you'd stay away from plastic surgery if you believe breast augmentations are Hell's handiwork!

-- Pharmacist-wannabees carefully consider that contraception requests are routine occurrences throughout each and every workday. And ponder whether it's proper as a professional to be the instigator of moral conflicts with other people on a daily basis. Then consider seriously whether it's the most appropriate career choice.

To those who say they have a perfect right to impose their personal morals on those whom they serve:

If you knew you'd face those specific moral dilemmas, proceeded anyway, and are now using your profession as a soapbox to profess your beliefs --

You aren't being a professional Physician or a professional Pharmacist, but rather an amateur Proselyte.

And if you just can't restrain the urge, you need to turn your collar around backwards and turn pro!

It's quite clear from the discussion that this issue breaks down somewhere around 85% abortion, 10% contraception and 5% "other". But hey, that points to a pretty simple fix!

-- Physician-wannabees simply choose some other less morally challenging specialty than OBG; just as you'd stay away from plastic surgery if you believe breast augmentations are Hell's handiwork!

-- Pharmacist-wannabees carefully consider that contraception requests are routine occurrences throughout each and every workday. And ponder whether it's proper as a professional to be the instigator of moral conflicts with other people on a daily basis. Then consider seriously whether it's the most appropriate career choice.

To those who say they have a perfect right to impose their personal morals on those whom they serve:

If you knew you'd face those specific moral dilemmas, proceeded anyway, and are now using your profession as a soapbox to profess your beliefs --

You aren't being a professional Physician or a professional Pharmacist, but rather an amateur Proselyte.

And if you just can't restrain the urge, you need to turn your collar around backwards and turn pro!

Sorry, Todd, if your religion demands you can't check out certain medicines to those who need them, you don't belong in the job.

If it demands you lie, even by omission, or otherwise coerce life choices, you don't belong in the job.

Frankly, I've been subjected to abuse by 'medical professionals' I went to expecting help, and instead got religious abuse while in pain. It's inappropriate.

You go to get a prescription filled, it's none of the pharmacist's business why you want it. It says 'Pharmacy,' not 'Confessional.'

Fact is, these 'religious objections' don't stop at abortion. You set the precedent that people can impose their religion through the workplace, serving 'morally correct' people while denying care to others, well... It never ends.

I'm a product of medical school and seminary. What the writer fails to recognize is that medicine, like theology, is rarely black and white. Doctors, like clergy, often disagree. Medical professionals who refuse particular remedies aren't disputing the requirement to do no harm to their patient. They're disputing the definition of WHO their patient may be. Sometimes life presents two bad choices and no good ones. This is when ethics really come into play. Ethics are inherently tied to faith for many people - be it faith in God or faith in legal definitions, or faith in their own conscience. It is reprehensible that the president of a seminary can miss such a basic point here - unless she's got an agenda other than exploring the issue openly.

HeyYou,

I feel no need to repent. I made the decision that was best for the child I already had, for me, for the father, and for the one I did not have the resources to bring into the world.

Do I wish it hadn't been necessary? Sure.

Do I think it was a sin? No.

Do I feel a need to be forgiven? No.

Diogenes

It was the "private religious beliefs" of certain
intelligent young men,that persuaded them to fly
plane-loads of people into the WTC on 9/11,2001.
The private religious beliefs of men vary enormously.
And most of then are totally irrational.
I feel sure that God is simply an invention
to console and comfort those who are unable
to cope with the reality of death.
People's "private religious beliefs" should not
interfere with one's professional ethics,one way or the other.
Faith is no virtue.In fact it's rather stupid
when you come to think about it.
And it should never be involved in the workplace.

Diogenes,

"We wouldn't be having this discussion if the prevalent mores of our society hadn't slid from "not until marriage" to the point that it is assumed most teenagers have had (often unprotected) sex by 17 or 18."

Maybe that's because, in the olden days, most people were married by the time they were 17 or 18?

"(often unprotected)"

Well, what do you expect when these 17 and 18 year olds don't have access to condoms or Birth Control pills? What do you expect when these 17 or 18 year olds don't have access to sexual education that teaches them about condoms and Birth Control pills?

If it's assumed they're going to do it, why aren't we teaching them how to be safe?

Change the title from doctor, pharmacisist,dentist
etc. To Policeman, Fireman, EMT and then decide whether faith, religious tenents etc. should effect their OBLIGATION.

Change the title from doctor, pharmacisist,dentist
etc. To Policeman, Fireman, EMT and then decide whether faith, religious tenents etc. should effect their OBLIGATION.

Actually, HeyYou, as a matter of fact I didn't say what my personal beliefs about abortion are, simply that one can't claim to be a doctor or get a job at a pharmacy to impose *their religious beliefs* on the lives of others.

Having no right is having no right.

Simply put, if they can't do the job, then they shouldn't put themselves in that position. People have a right to informed consent in this society, and access to emergency contraception, and, yes, abortion if they so choose.

You can scream about hating 'heathens' all you like, it doesn't mean you have any more right to impose your beliefs on other people's bodies than you did before.

You decided it was about 'murder' and 'your God.'

This doesn't change the law, professional ethics, scientific truth, or what's *not lying to and hurting people that come to one for care or to pick up their medicine.*

As for the kind of *general* health care you get when someone like you decides you're a 'god-hating babykiller' for not being Christian, well, that's another aspect of this.

It by no means ends with reproductive health.

WICCIN, TJ, here's the plan. First we'll drag the woman to the city gates and stone her. Then we'll randomly select a man and burn him at the stake.

No no no. That's not it. We'll burn the woman at the stake and gag her so she can't snitch on the man.

In any event whatever is done must be civilized. Come to think about it, the Romans being civilized and all we can feed her and all the men she names to the lions.

I get the popcorn and peanut concession.

It seems to me to be the height of irony that Prof. Thistlewhaite, a tenured professor of theology, would not only defend abortion but condemn any physician who refuses to participate by saying no medical professional should allow themselves to be hobbled in the execution of their profession by their "private religious beliefs". Would that more people of all professions in this time of moral relativism had the courage to let their behaviour at all times, at work and otherwise, be informed by their "private religious beliefs".
We wouldn't be having this discussion if the prevalent mores of our society hadn't slid from "not until marriage" to the point that it is assumed most teenagers have had (often unprotected) sex by 17 or 18.
The sanctity of life in all it's forms used to be a well-understood precept of civilized societies. That was before we learned to worship promiscuity and greed.

Wiccan, If you read my post I said I will NOT say a woman cannot have an abortion. The law says she can. Your just trying to be cute Wiccan. Funny too, coming from one who thinks they're so smart.

Sean:
So if a dogcather believes that leash laws are unfair and that it's a sin to ever put an animal in a cage for any reason whatsoever, and refuses to come pick up the stray dog that just bit your child and have it evaluated for rabies, that's ok because he didn't give up the right to practice his beliefs just because he took the job.

Heyyou-

You wimped out on us. Do you have the courage of your convictions to convict a woman for having an abortion? If so, what is the proper sanction? If not, now is the time for some quiet reflection.

lepidopteryx, Unless you repent, THAT decision will be made for you some day.

Anon:

No shame. I made the decision that was best for all involved.

Yes, anonymous is me.

The idea that the state can order someone to perform an act against thier will is repugnant. We ended the draft thirty years ago because we, as a society, decided that forcing people into the miltary was wrong. How is forcing people to perform acts they find morally repugnant any different?

The idea that people who have become doctors or pharmecists lose their right to have beliefs that differ from the majority is also troubling. What is ironic is that the same people who are now trying to shoe horn doctors into providing services against their will are the same people who held up the moral superiority of Thoreau's ideas on civil disobedience in the 60's and 70's.

Paganplace, I have no idea what your talking about but I will say this. I'm not saying to you or to any heathen you CAN'T have an abortion. I wouldn't protest outside an abortion clinic like PP. I wouldn't vote just for a person because they are against abortion. YOU CAN HAVE AN ABORTION IF YOU CHOOSE. The law says you can. But do NOT presume to push your heathenistic belief system on the unsuspecting saying that a fetus or embryo is not a human being. I find it facinating that human beings as much as they hate God can only keep that one commandment of all He gave, "Be fruitful and multiply."

lepidopteryx, SHAME ON YOU FOR NOT GIVING THE BABY IN YOU THE CHANCE TO GIVE HIS OR HER OPINION ON THE MATTER!

wiccan, What does wicked deserve? You tell us.

" HeyYOU:

"Amazing it always comes down to whether or not a doctor must condemn an innocent baby to death."

Even when at issue are *contraceptives,* not that reality ever got in the way of people trying to religiously and sexually dominate women that aren't even *of* their religion or their interpretation there of.

It's not the provider's decision (or condemnation) to make in the *first* place, whether or not the 'innocent baby' even exists outside their particular religious belief.

"No. Murder is murder"

Aaand, *not murder* is *not murder.*

Insisting something is murder when it isn't doesn't make it so.

What some Christians are doing here is insisting on lying to patients, denying them health care if they don't agree with their theology, violating professional ethics, taking control of people's lives that are none of their business, being personally-abusive, and imposing pain, privation and suffering on others all on the basis of *religious definitions* that aren't in many cases even debatably-true objectively.

Sorry, you ask too much, Hey You.

It's not your life we're talking about, here.

The Hippocratic Oath explicitly prohibits abortions, so doctors choosing not to give abortions do not diverge from this ancient guide. Has she actually read the Oath or does she opine ignorantly? I think the latter.

Ashley

You handled the situation really well.
But be prepared for much more of the same,as
Hinduism,Islam and other religious groups demand
equal time,and equal,if different changes in the way we do things in the Western world.
Being largely Christian, America cannot laugh or comment on the stone-age stupidity of Islamothink,because the deeply ingrained Christianothink is just as ridiculous.
We are so inside the box,we can't see it.
The enemy is religion.

Heyyou:

The fact of the matter is that there are times when abortion is the best option for everyone involved, including the fetus.

I had an abortion 15 years ago. My daughter was a toddler, I was a college student, barely making ends meet with a minimum wage job. I was also on medications for a neurological problem that were known teratogens (chemicals that cause birth defects). I was on BCP's, but my doctor failed to warn me that the antibiotic he prescribed for a sinus infection could interfere with the absorption and efficacy of the BCP's.
Stopping the neuro meds I was on at the time was not an option. I did not have the resources to care for another healthy child, much less a profoundly disabled one. Yes, I could have given birth to it and put it up for adoption, but ther are already beaucoup mildly-to-severely disabled children in the system here that will never have parents because most adoptive parents want healthy babies. Putting a severely disabled baby into my state's foster care system is not much better than leaving it on the side of the road with a $20 bill pinned to its diaper and wishing it luck.
I believed then and still believe that my decision was the best for all of us.

HeyYou, You had better let us know what the punishment would be for the biological father too.

So, Heyyou, what is the punishment or sanction you would render to the woman who had an abortion? 5-10 years in prision? Life in prison? Death? Inquiring heathens would like to know.

HeyYou,

I meant the repitition. But...

" A woman is pregant. Fact. A woman gives birth. Fact. The baby birthed is a living breathing human being. Fact."

Do you think we'd even be having this discussion if it were men who were effected? Also, abortion is only half the debate. Where do you stand on Birth Control and Plan B?

Thanks for the French romance, btw ;)

Au contraire my technicolordreamboat, logic says hogwash to the argument by heathens regarding the fact that a fetus and embryo is a human being. Even science proves it if you don't believe human nature. A woman is pregant. Fact. A woman gives birth. Fact. The baby birthed is a living breathing human being. Fact. Only a demented mind would muddle the clarity of life.

I wish it were not so that circumstance dictates
"belief" and by following blindly one's own "beliefs" we inflict pain in the name of higher "conscience." Suffering inflicted in God's name then forgiveness for it begged in God's name has been the moral snake eating it's tail since the beginning. Remembering Love is not a concept but a verb, we can all think what we want but not act as we want. Using the former for the latter is the well worn path to hell paved with good intent.

I wish it were not so that circumstance dictates
"belief" and by following blindly one's own "beliefs" we inflict pain in the name of higher "conscience." Suffering inflicted in God's name then forgiveness for it begged in God's name has been the moral snake eating it's tail since the beginning. Remembering Love is not a concept but a verb, we can all think what we want but not act as we want. Using the former for the latter is the well worn path to hell paved with good intent.

I wish it were not so that circumstance dictates
"belief" and by following blindly one's own "beliefs" we inflict pain in the name of higher "conscience." Suffering inflicted in God's name then forgiveness for it begged in God's name has been the moral snake eating it's tail since the beginning. Remembering Love is not a concept but a verb, we can all think what we want but not act as we want. Using the former for the latter is the well worn path to hell paved with good intent.

HeyYou, The same thing that Ashley described has happened to my wife on multiple occasions at the pharmacy nearest our home. She goes to a different pharmacy now just so she doesn't have to deal with the pompous clown.

What part of her story do you find so difficult to believe?

HeyYou,

The same could be said for your religionist BS.

I wish it were not so that circumstance dictates
"belief" and by following blindly one's own "beliefs" we inflict pain in the name of higher "conscience." Suffering inflicted in God's name then forgiveness for it begged in God's name has been the moral snake eating it's tail since the beginning. Remembering Love is not a concept but a verb, we can all think what we want but not act as we want. Using the former for the latter is the well worn path to hell paved with good intent.

I wish it were not so that circumstance dictates
"belief" and by following blindly one's own "beliefs" we inflict pain in the name of higher "conscience." Suffering inflicted in God's name then forgiveness for it begged in God's name has been the moral snake eating it's tail since the beginning. Remembering Love is not a concept but a verb, we can all think what we want but not act as we want. Using the former for the latter is the well worn path to hell paved with good intent.

Norm, you didn't have to repeat yourself. Your heathen dogma is droned into humanity ad nauseum. But just because you repeat it adnauseum doesn't make it less a lie. Common sense tells you a fetus or embryo is a human being. When they finally enter this heathen world they are humans. The heathen argument against fetus or embryo being human has to be one of the stupidest arguments to enter the heart of fallen man.

Ashley. Riiiiiighhht.

Jacob

Silence is golden.
So is brevity.

Regards..yoyo

Ashley,

Thank you for your response! Great way to handle that pharmacist. I've had to use that argument, too, in getting my prescription filled.

Thank you for your article and for the discussion this has begun. You see, I already have expereinced this discrimination.
As an unmarried college student, I went to see a gynecologist and was prescribed birth control pills, both to prevent conception and because my cramps were so bad there were days I couldn't get out of bed. I was also told the pills would help regulate my cycle and control my PMS.
I presented the prescription to a local pharmacist who asked whether I was married. When I said no, he informed me it violated his religion to in any way condone premarital sex and he was denying me my prescription.
When I asked whether he had any legal basis for this, he turned red and stammered. I inquired whether his religion allowed abortions. When he said no, I then informed him that he should fill my prescription because in so doing, he was preventing me from having abortions to rid myself of any unwanted children. He filled the prescription while I waited, and when he handed me my bag, I asked whether he felt immoral for having condoned one sin instead of the other. He turned red again and refused to answer.
Many women will not challenge these biases from their doctors, and it is a disgrace to the entire medical community that these people are allowed to practice medicine. There is no reason to deny medical care to any person, particularly based on personal, private religious practices. I hope medical care providers and supporters of this bigoted approach to medicine will pause and think about the people they are caring for instead of mouthing pious soundbites about morality and religious freedom.

Amazing it always comes down to whether or not a doctor must condemn an innocent baby to death. No. Murder is murder. Now there should be doctors out there who agree with the murder theology that pervades our society but to compell ALL docters to murder for YOUR sake? NO.

"Ken,

The Hippocratic Oath also required the Physician remain celibate. Who made you the arbiter of which archaic portions were kept and which were discarded."

True, Read... there's also the simple fact that the Oath *has* been updated, and the oath they *swore* has nothing to do in this sense with what oaths someone *else* swore once.

Ken,

The Hippocratic Oath also required the Physician remain celibate. Who made you the arbiter of which archaic portions were kept and which were discarded.

Two central and key points need to be made in this discussion. First, medicine is a licensed profession, so those who refuse to practice it in good faith are obliged to surrender their licenses. Put another way, in a market economy, the presence of a pharmacist or physician may be considered as displacing another pharmacist or physician due to supply and demand principles. If that individual will not fulfill the entirety of the responsibilities that he is expected to perform then society is deprived of the expected return on its contract given in the form of the license to practice. Therefore, society as a whole has a role in removing from service those practitioners who refuse to do so.

Second, it is a fundamental concept in this country that in exchange for the right to practice my religion I give up the right to have my religion codified into law. Given that it is an entirely true statement that no one knows when the human being is a part of the growing fetus or if it is not until that first breath, it is by definition a matter of faith. Therefore, it is clear that when one states "If you are opposed to abortion, don't have one", as I've heard often enough by those keen on retaining a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, this is simply a recognition that attempts to codify others religious belief are both un-American and unconstitutional.

An example of a hypothetical situation that may illustrate what so many so called pro-lifers miss: Consider a religion where it was believed that children who were conceived during a new Moon were evil. Consider also that this religion viewed the murder of that child once born to be the greater evil. A believer of that religion would be obliged to abort children that were conceived when the Moon was new as a matter of faith. While hard for others to stomach, this could be understandable. One could conceive of such a faith being accepted. However, what would happen if the adherents of that faith decided that it needed to impose its belief on others? I can not conceive of that being accepted by any scenario imaginable in this country. Why? Because in that case everyone would recognize that this would be a clear violation of the first amendment. It is only because of the plank in the collective eye of the religious right that this is not seen as what is currently being attempted with regard to not only abortion but also things like birth control and Plan B.

Finally, I refer you to Anna Quindlen's recent Newsweek column. She brought to my attention, although she didn't claim credit for it, but it bears repeating. If abortion is made a crime, what sentence should be given to the woman who has one? If it is a crime because abortion is murder, do we impose the death penalty? Is it first degree murder if the woman has actually carefully considered the entirety of the situation and deliberated over it for some time? Is it manslaughter if she hasn't?

Or, in fact, I should add, *deceived* by those who are supposed to be helping them, but have a 'moral objection' to telling the truth about options to patients in need.

"First, do no harm' is in large part meant to *protect* doctors from unethical practices: the patient has to come first, *not* the doctor's religious beliefs against, say, emergency contraception or that anything they can call 'abortion' constitutes 'murder.'

It's clear that the 'controversy' is manufactured...

(and often based on false or unscientific premises, such as that to be LBGT is so morally wrong they don't deserve health care, that emergency contraception is abortion in any sense (It's not) or that aborting a blastula or embryo is the same thing as murdering a living human being.)

...to get a 'foot in the door' for further intrustions of fundamentalist belief into the lives of others who have nothing to do with it.

It's about control, and is antithetical to care, and I see it in the same light as some legislation introduced in recent years to give rapists paternity rights to force the victim to carry the baby to term, and continued access to the women they assaulted.

I think if people had ever been mocked by Christian doctors in front of interns while in enough pain to be in tears, denied medication because they didn't approve of their religion or sexuality, one could see much better what this kind of thing is really about: Control.

It's antithetical to the practice of medicine.

And, as always, these religious impositions in fact most affect those who are *least* able to pay for health care twice after being refused treatment or medicine.

I whole-heartedly agree with your position i your "Putting Patients First." I wonder if the Rev. Andrew Greeley agrees with you or not?

Bob Munzenrider

Verse,

"Are they interested in patients well being or do they have their own predetermined endeavor that requires extensive knowledge of the medical field in order to fulfill their personal goals, which won't likely comply with the Hippocratic Oath?"

You mean like preaching from the exam table? The pulpit is so last-year.

The Hippocratic Oath is the most significant form of professional affirmation and service cohesion that is uniformed worldwide despite religion, despite the various types of economies a country abides by such as Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, etc., despite language, despite nationality, despite cultural history and genealogy, despite the types of governments such as Republics, Monarchies, Dictatorships, Confederations, Military, etc. Medical professionals are obligated to serve the patient. A doctor's sole obligation is to practice their craft only for the good of the patient, if that can't be done at least do no harm.
As for the "Right of Conscience," for which they can inform patients in regards to medical practices or procedures and dispensing medicine that they can claim to have a moral objection. Moral objections pertaining to what? The only true moral physicians and pharmacists have to benefit the patient and only the patient. Further more, no potential patient should ever be refused vital medical services or prescriptions due to their sexual orientation or unprecedented pregnancies because their personal morals forbids it. If the medical profession based upon the Hippocratic Oath contradicts their religious, cultural, traditional values or mores, then they should never have entered the medical profession in the first place! If they were intelligent enough to be physicians or pharmacists then they should possess enough sense and whit to discover this potential contradiction between the medical profession's sworn affirmation and their own core values before entering or completing medical school. Besides since the Hippocratic Oath and all of its fine details are universally accepted worldwide, and is considered to be the supreme value of the medial profession, then students should have realized that there would experience a moral struggle.
The real question to ask is not whether or not the right of conscious is valid? We should ask why would anyone continue medical school if they know that moral conflicts would arise? What's their true endeavor? Are they interested in patients well being or do they have their own predetermined endeavor that requires extensive knowledge of the medical field in order to fulfill their personal goals, which won't likely comply with the Hippocratic Oath? These are some questions that must be answered.

Well said, Rev. Thistlethwaite. I couldn't agree with you more.

Rev Thistlethwaite.

Thanks for your thoughtful column.
Your position would seem to be the correct one,
bearing in mind the variety of different religious
beliefs that now exist,and the pandemonium
that would result if doctors were more influenced
by their religion than by the Hippocratic oath.
We, the patients, would be in the ridiculous position
of seeking a doctor whose faith,or lack of it,matched our own.
What a whacky world that would be.

Ken, You are assuming that everyone accepts the idea that a fertilized embryo is a living human being. That's a religious belief that not everyone shares. Those who accept this concept can choose not to have an abortion but they may not impose their personal beliefs on others.
Where is the concern for the welfare of the woman who came to the doctor for help? She is the patient to whom the doctor owes fealty to the Hippocratic Oath. Why is the welfare of the woman ignored? Who are you to judge what is right for someone else? It is the doctor's obligation to offer full information to the patient so she can make an informed decision. If s/he can not do what is asked, then a referral can be made but no one should play god with someone else's life.

Ken, You are assuming that everyone accepts the idea that a fertilized embryo is a living human being. That's a religious belief that not everyone shares. Those who accept this concept can choose not to have an abortion but they may not impose their personal beliefs on others.
Where is the concern for the welfare of the woman who came to the doctor for help? She is the patient to whom the doctor owes fealty to the Hippocratic Oath. Why is the welfare of the woman ignored? Who are you to judge what is right for someone else? It is the doctor's obligation to offer full information to the patient so she can make an informed decision. If s/he can not do what is asked, then a referral can be made but no one should play god with someone else's life.

July 5 news roundup of UK terror plot investigation activities and related news:

-- 45 Muslim doctors planned US terror raids. Daily Telegraph reports that "45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an extremist internet chat site". Police found details of discussion on the British Jihadist web site run by Younis Tsouli ("Terrorist 007"). Jihadists stated "We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy." Telegraph believes that is refers to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida. Daily Telegraph states that the Jihadists also referred to using six Chevrolet GT vehicles and three fishing boats and blowing up petrol tanks with rocket propelled grenades. This would support Sky News report on July 4 of British Anglican cleric Canon Andrew White who has said of an April discussion with Al-Qaeda representative where "[h]e told me that they were going to start killing in the UK then the USA".

Ken -- Sorry, but abortion and drug treatments to induce abortion are accepted medical practices and are legal (although the availability and aspects of its legality vary from state to state). The patient has the right to access these treatments or be informed about them. If the doctor cannot provide the treatment or information due to his religious beliefs, then he is obliged to refer the patient to someone who can.

It needs to be mentioned that until recently when physicians took the Hippocratic Oath they also explicitly swore not to perform abortions.
Since destroying a living human being should properly be construed as "doing harm" it would seem that a health worker who in good conscience refused to perform or prescribe abortifacients would be in perfect agreement with the Hippocratic oath if not in Ms. Thistlewhaite's Orwellian reversal.

"Conscientious objector" status is a false analogy for a medical practitioner. A doctor is responsible for more than himself or his own conscience ... his patient is the recipient of his care or lack thereof. If he cannot provide a particular service that is legal and medically accepted to his patient, he should not be practicing or he should be referring his patients to other doctors who are not equally hobbled. Any doctor who purposely withholds from the patient treatment or information should be found guilty of malpractice.

“only for the good of my patients.” is argumentative. What is best for the patient? Who knows? God surely knows. But God is nowhere to be found even though God is everywhere. Guess we'll have to rely on God's representatives, the ministry to tell doctors what is "only for the good of my patients."

Who will run the kingdom of God and tell everyone what God demands, "only for the good of my patients" while we await the return of Jesus? Where will he/she/they get his/her/their authority to speak for God? The Bible is a proved hoax.

It's a lot worse than that. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul but only IF IT in the ball of fire was really a supernatural being and the whole tale isn't a hoax. That's the keystone question on which all questions hinge.

The big money goes to those who use the Bible to dictate to everyone what they must do and must not do. Doctors are just one of the gang that's dictated to by the ministry, God's representatives, God's vicars, God's attorneys with the Bible given power to sign God's name, condemn to hell, baptize, save.

We can argue "“only for the good of my patients.” until we turn blue in the face or we can renounce the power of the ministry, get religion out of government and the real gun of law enforcement out of preacher's hands.