Rant Ah religion.

[Turamber]

Phew... it is 2012. I was worried there for a second.

I also like the part where you called his daughter a whore.

I did no such thing.

 

[opticle]

Patients may ask you to perform, advise on, or refer them for a treatment or procedure which is not prohibited by law or statutory code of practice in the country where you work, but to which you have a conscientious objection7In such cases you must tell patients of their right to see another doctor with whom they can discuss their situation and ensure that they have sufficient information

God bored of reading the thread as I have to go to work, but in case someone hasn't quoted already ^. It does happen, Job isn't trolling, it is fucking annoying.

 

[Ch3tan]

And you missed all the other parts of the code nicely in that qoute, if uou hadnt got bored of reading you'd see ehy you've misinterpreted the above.

 

[opticle]

But I do know for a fact that this happens.. it's controversial but it does. Cases like it used to come up in our ethics lectures pretty often. You can disagree with that if you want, but it's true. There's no need to imply I missed important parts out on purpose, I read them but tbh they are not as significant as you think. And as far as I can tell, the rest of the thread I didn't read was all about porking, so I'm not sure what revelation I missed.

Yes its shit, but the GMC Guidelines you are quoting are open to interpretation.

It's not "urgent", there are alternative measures easily available in the interim and other appointments are available, if not convenient. He has referred her on to other doctors who can provide what she is after. It doesn't have to be immediately. It's shit but that's free healthcare on a limited budget in a free and open society that's accepting of others' beliefs. This is also a problem with a system that doesn't disclose the "purpose" of an appointment prior to seeing the patient.

I can understand the difficulty he is in if he has strong religious beliefs - do we have a right to force someone to go against them for our convenience ? The oral contraceptive is not a treatment for disease or illness, and it doesn't protect you against disease like a condom does - its a lifestyle adjunct and protects you against babies. Should that even be the "expected" territory of a doctor? It is shit and annoying, but it's an ethical minefield and there is no right or wrong answer.

For example: "The first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is "Do no harm". Discuss which approach does less harm?"

And more, Gynaecologists are allowed to refuse to provide abortions, why not a method of contraception that (sometimes only) prevents embryo implantation ?

The main issue here in many ways is that the NHS is a free healthcare system that can't cope with providing "On Demand" services all the time. People seem to think it should provide whatever they want, when they want it, but it just can't cope with that.

At the end of the day, if another appointment had been immediately available, this wouldn't have been a problem for anyone. Should a man have to give up on his religion for that lack of convenience ?

But yeah, it does happen and it is annoying. * hides *

 

[Ch3tan]

He should not impose his beliefs on others.

 

[opticle]

*Looks up at his own post*

TLDR.

 

[opticle]

He isn't, he just said he couldn't do it, didn't he ? Unless he was a douche about it, in which case yeah

 

[TdC]

tbh, religion or no, I still feel he should have said up front that he wouldn't treat her, arranged another doctor, and not have wasted everyone's time. including mine, albeit indirectly.

 

[Scouse]

the GMC Guidelines you are quoting are open to interpretation.

Where does it say that? It looks pretty explicit to me.