Bak Posted November 10, 2008 Report Posted November 10, 2008 from other topic: It is similar to how doctors can't be forced to prescribe certain medications (notably the morning-after pill) if doing so would conflict with their personal/religious beliefs. this seems stupid to me. religious beliefs don't give you permission to be incompetent. If i had a religious belief that prevented me from bringing my sick children to the hospital, I would undoubtedly be prosecuted for homicide when they die. when people go to a licensed doctor they expect to be given unbiased medical opinions. i've heard cases where doctors/nurses wouldn't bring up abortion as a possible option because they felt it was morally wrong. They wouldn't refer you to another doctor since this would accomplish the same thing as telling the patient about their medical options. if you go to a doctor and he doesn't give you the medicine you need then he's not doing his job and should lose his license.
Hate The Fake Posted November 11, 2008 Report Posted November 11, 2008 if a doctor believes that abortion is indeed killing, then he has every right to not prescribe the morning after pill. What right is it of yours to force a person to commit what they believe to be murder
Aceflyer Posted November 11, 2008 Report Posted November 11, 2008 (edited) if a doctor believes that abortion is indeed killing, then he has every right to not prescribe the morning after pill. What right is it of yours to force a person to commit what they believe to be murder I agree here. Unlike clerks or pharmacists, whose jobs do not involve making judgment calls, doctors' jobs actually involve making judgment calls. Every decision about whether or not to prescribe a specific medication or whether or not to recommend a specific procedure involves a judgment call about what the doctor believes would be best for the patient. You can't regulate how people think. In the case of a pro-life doctor, for instance, he or she is not going to think that prescribing the morning after pill is best for the patient. You can't force the aforementioned doctor to make the judgment call that prescribing the MAP would be best for the patient. On the other hand, ideally I do think all doctors should provide all patients with full information on all scientifically relevant medications or procedures. But this is not realistic due to time constraints, due to the fact that many patients wouldn't want to get confused with such an overload of information, and due to the fact that not all patients would be able to understand all the information. Edited November 11, 2008 by Aceflyer
NBVegita Posted November 11, 2008 Report Posted November 11, 2008 The problem is that you're paying a doctor for his/her medical opinion. Their personal beliefs should have no impact on the service they provide you. Would it be a doctor's right to deny you pulling a family member (who for this argument is say in a coma) off life support because he believes it's the wrong choice? Ultimately you are paying for a service and you can go to a different service, but not all medical plans allow you to do so. So how is it fair for you to be denied birth control (morning after, pill, etc.) simply because the only doctor you can go to doesn't believe in it?
Aceflyer Posted November 11, 2008 Report Posted November 11, 2008 (edited) The problem is that you're paying a doctor for his/her medical opinion. Their personal beliefs should have no impact on the service they provide you. Would it be a doctor's right to deny you pulling a family member (who for this argument is say in a coma) off life support because he believes it's the wrong choice? Ultimately you are paying for a service and you can go to a different service, but not all medical plans allow you to do so. So how is it fair for you to be denied birth control (morning after, pill, etc.) simply because the only doctor you can go to doesn't believe in it? You're still paying the doctor for their opinion. Medicine is an art - not a hard, black-and-white science like, say, mathematics. Doctors' professional opinions are necessarily based not only on their objective knowledge but also on their experience, feelings, instincts, and beliefs. Even many/most objective/quan!@#$%^&*ative results in medicine require an accompanying subjective analysis and judgment call based on said experience, feelings, instincts, and beliefs. Hence, unless one argues that people who are religious, or pro-life, or ... should be denied the opportunity to practice medicine, then having doctors who refuse to prescribe certain medications is, unfortunately, inevitable. Edited November 11, 2008 by Aceflyer
NBVegita Posted November 12, 2008 Report Posted November 12, 2008 The only way your argument is even remotely valid would be if there are adverse effects of the pill/morning after/insert medication here on you medically. It has been proven that in fact the pill helps regulate hormones and that the morning after pill is perfectly safe. Also a doctor is supposed to give you all of your options. If there is an experimental medicine that they think you would be a good candidate for, they have to get your approval first. Vice versa if you go to a doctor and know what you want and he won't give it to you simply based on his religious beliefs, with no medical reasons backing him, that is wrong. Your argument has no grounding because you're arguing apples with oranges. If you go to a doctor he is supposed to give you a simple medical opinion. It should not be based on personal beliefs, simply professional beliefs. If you wanted his opinion as to if you should be practicing abortion, you would be paying him as a psychiatrist not a doctor. Any opinions a doctor is giving you should be professional opinions and not influence by their own life choices. Again I state that a doctor is supposed to give you an unbiased professional medical opinion, not impose his/her religious beliefs on to you.
Sketter Posted November 12, 2008 Report Posted November 12, 2008 The only way your argument is even remotely valid would be if there are adverse effects of the pill/morning after/insert medication here on you medically. It has been proven that in fact the pill helps regulate hormones and that the morning after pill is perfectly safe. Also a doctor is supposed to give you all of your options. If there is an experimental medicine that they think you would be a good candidate for, they have to get your approval first. Vice versa if you go to a doctor and know what you want and he won't give it to you simply based on his religious beliefs, with no medical reasons backing him, that is wrong. Your argument has no grounding because you're arguing apples with oranges. If you go to a doctor he is supposed to give you a simple medical opinion. It should not be based on personal beliefs, simply professional beliefs. If you wanted his opinion as to if you should be practicing abortion, you would be paying him as a psychiatrist not a doctor. Any opinions a doctor is giving you should be professional opinions and not influence by their own life choices. Again I state that a doctor is supposed to give you an unbiased professional medical opinion, not impose his/her religious beliefs on to you. Yep. I really have nothing to add. He's got it spot on.
Bak Posted November 12, 2008 Author Report Posted November 12, 2008 Ultimately you are paying for a service and you can go to a different service That's assuming that you can figure out that your doctor is withholding information. But you went to the doctor for the information. What right is it of yours to force a person to commit what they believe to be murder The thing is, from an atheist perspective, the belief that abortion is murder is arbitrary. What's stopping a tailor of religion X from saying masturbating is also murdering millions of humans and then refusing to make pants that have pockets (while staying on the pants company's payroll). Why can't Amish people get jobs working with computers and then not do any work because technology is against their religion (and not expect to be fired)? No one is forcing the lady to gay marry, she can quit/get fired. on something related to what aceflyer was saying, what do you think about pharmacists refusing to give out the morning after pill and such? The problem with this is that some places only have one local pharmacy, so that if you need a pill that day (the morning after pill doesn't work the week after), you now have to travel several hours which isn't feasible for everyone. Then again, if there's a demand wouldn't the free market solve this? I think the story I read was someone getting fired for refusing to give out pills... is that the free market at work? The main questions here are should the boss be allowed to fire the employee, and should the state be allowed to force the pharmacy to stock such pills.
Aceflyer Posted November 12, 2008 Report Posted November 12, 2008 The only way your argument is even remotely valid would be if there are adverse effects of the pill/morning after/insert medication here on you medically. But there are such adverse effects. It has been proven that in fact the pill helps regulate hormones and that the morning after pill is perfectly safe. Depends on how you define 'perfectly safe'. Also a doctor is supposed to give you all of your options. If there is an experimental medicine that they think you would be a good candidate for, they have to get your approval first. Vice versa if you go to a doctor and know what you want and he won't give it to you simply based on his religious beliefs, with no medical reasons backing him, that is wrong. Again, in an ideal situation as I said, a doctor would give all his/her patients all of the options. But in reality this is just not feasible or practical most of the time. Which is unfortunate. Your argument has no grounding because you're arguing apples with oranges. If you go to a doctor he is supposed to give you a simple medical opinion. It should not be based on personal beliefs, simply professional beliefs. If you wanted his opinion as to if you should be practicing abortion, you would be paying him as a psychiatrist not a doctor. Any opinions a doctor is giving you should be professional opinions and not influence by their own life choices. Again I state that a doctor is supposed to give you an unbiased professional medical opinion, not impose his/her religious beliefs on to you. It could be surprising how very blurred the line between 'professional opinion' and 'personal belief' can get. Again, I feel compelled to point out that I, personally, in fact, am absolutely against, say, pro-life doctors denying women access to the morning-after pill or to birth control pills. I merely feel that I have to approach this logically, which unfortunately results in me arguing a position I actually oppose.
rootbear75 Posted November 12, 2008 Report Posted November 12, 2008 think about doctors in india or the middle east.they take their religion into ALL medical stances. but then again we ARE talking about America or a democratic nation right?
Dav Posted November 12, 2008 Report Posted November 12, 2008 I always thought if a doctor refused to treat on moral or religious grounds you had to be referd to another doctor
»Lynx Posted November 12, 2008 Report Posted November 12, 2008 This thread is pointless and only thrives off one line of bullshit. Firstly, if you request the morning after pill - you get it. That's it... You don't get asked any other questions other than: Do you have severe liver disease? Do you suffer from porphyria (Which I might add is a *VERY* rare condition)... If either of them answers are yes, then you will be provided another form of post coital contraception. If a doctor wants to share their opinion, that's their right. Most won't, as the morning after pill is completely harmless and even on a moral ground, is hugely acceptable. If a doctor/gp/pharmacist refuses to provide you it, then they're not fit for their job - and somebody has quite obviously made a rather large flip flop somewhere hiring them into a position where their ethical judgement clouds pragmatic medical opinion. Aceflyer> Unlike clerks or pharmacists, whose jobs do not involve making judgment calls, doctors' jobs actually involve making judgment calls. Every decision about whether or not to prescribe a specific medication or whether or not to recommend a specific procedure involves a judgment call about what the doctor believes would be best for the patient. You can't regulate how people think. In the case of a pro-life doctor, for instance, he or she is not going to think that prescribing the morning after pill is best for the patient. You can't force the aforementioned doctor to make the judgment call that prescribing the MAP would be best for the patient. This is a completely fair argument on the basis that the morning after pill is going to kill them if they take it... That's about the only grounds for that argument - but is completely off-topic to the point that was being made by BaK in the initial post. Aceflyer> Medicine is an art - not a hard, black-and-white science like, say, mathematics. Doctors' professional opinions are necessarily based not only on their objective knowledge but also on their experience, feelings, instincts, and beliefs. Even many/most objective/quantitative results in medicine require an accompanying subjective analysis and judgment call based on said experience, feelings, instincts, and beliefs. Medicine isn't an art - it is a Science, we're just far too simple to treat it like a Science. Any decent doctor will only focus on how to cure you, or help you out of your problems causing the least distress as possible - and that's it. If it clouds their personal beliefs, they're in the wrong line of work. BaK> That's assuming that you can figure out that your doctor is withholding information. But you went to the doctor for the information. If you go to a doctor asking for family planning, you'll be referred to a family planning centre where the staff have been trained to provide you impartial advice. If this doesn't happen, somebody done an oopsie. Dav> I always thought if a doctor refused to treat on moral or religious grounds you had to be referd to another doctor I think this only ever happens in cases of euthanasia, which is rare and off point. -Lynx
Aceflyer Posted November 12, 2008 Report Posted November 12, 2008 This thread is pointless and only thrives off one line of bull!@#$%^&*. Firstly, if you request the morning after pill - you get it. That's it... You don't get asked any other questions other than: Do you have severe liver disease? Do you suffer from porphyria (Which I might add is a *VERY* rare condition)... If either of them answers are yes, then you will be provided another form of post coital contraception. Maybe so in Britain. But in the States, there are doctors who will refuse to prescribe or even inform patients of the MAP - something I strongly disagree with, btw. If a doctor wants to share their opinion, that's their right. Most won't, as the morning after pill is completely harmless and even on a moral ground, is hugely acceptable. If a doctor/gp/pharmacist refuses to provide you it, then they're not fit for their job - and somebody has quite obviously made a rather large flip flop somewhere hiring them into a position where their ethical judgement clouds pragmatic medical opinion. Depends on who you're talking about. Aceflyer> Unlike clerks or pharmacists, whose jobs do not involve making judgment calls, doctors' jobs actually involve making judgment calls. Every decision about whether or not to prescribe a specific medication or whether or not to recommend a specific procedure involves a judgment call about what the doctor believes would be best for the patient. You can't regulate how people think. In the case of a pro-life doctor, for instance, he or she is not going to think that prescribing the morning after pill is best for the patient. You can't force the aforementioned doctor to make the judgment call that prescribing the MAP would be best for the patient. This is a completely fair argument on the basis that the morning after pill is going to kill them if they take it... That's about the only grounds for that argument - but is completely off-topic to the point that was being made by BaK in the initial post. I never said the pill was lethal. But it is still a judgment call the doctor has to make. Aceflyer> Medicine is an art - not a hard, black-and-white science like, say, mathematics. Doctors' professional opinions are necessarily based not only on their objective knowledge but also on their experience, feelings, instincts, and beliefs. Even many/most objective/quan!@#$%^&*ative results in medicine require an accompanying subjective analysis and judgment call based on said experience, feelings, instincts, and beliefs. Medicine isn't an art - it is a Science, we're just far too simple to treat it like a Science. Any decent doctor will only focus on how to cure you, or help you out of your problems causing the least distress as possible - and that's it. If it clouds their personal beliefs, they're in the wrong line of work. Interesting opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that medicine is far from a hard science. If medicine were as simple as you seem to think it is, we wouldn't need doctors. We'd be able to make computer programs that any layman or pharmacist could use to obtain a prescription. If you go to a doctor asking for family planning, you'll be referred to a family planning centre where the staff have been trained to provide you impartial advice. If this doesn't happen, somebody done an oopsie. Again, not consistently true in the States as far as I know. (I could be wrong though, haven't really looked into this issue in years.)
AstroProdigy Posted November 24, 2008 Report Posted November 24, 2008 Interesting opinion' date=' but it doesn't change the fact that medicine is far from a hard science. If medicine were as simple as you seem to think it is, we wouldn't need doctors. We'd be able to make computer programs that any layman or pharmacist could use to obtain a prescription.[/quote'] Medicine is a very complicated field with a huge amount of medical conditions and medicines and requires a great deal of understanding about the human body. The reason we need doctors is because new things come up all the time because medicine is a dynamic science and a computer would need to have the artificial intelligence required to adapt to it. A layman or pharmacist was never trained to the specifications of being a doctor. You wouldn't ask an astronomer to study elephants, but that doesn't mean biology is not a science.
Aceflyer Posted November 24, 2008 Report Posted November 24, 2008 Actually medicine doesn't change all that fast. And even if it did, it would probably be easier and faster to update a computer program than to get all the doctors around the nation up to date.
AstroProdigy Posted November 25, 2008 Report Posted November 25, 2008 Actually medicine doesn't change all that fast. And even if it did, it would probably be easier and faster to update a computer program than to get all the doctors around the nation up to date. Doctors need to learn new advances constantly or face become obsolete. Besides we probably will some day have a computer that can work as a doctor, but it would one incredibly complicated piece of technology.
Aceflyer Posted November 25, 2008 Report Posted November 25, 2008 Doctors need to learn new advances constantly or face become obsolete. Ideally, they should. In reality? For most doctors, doesn't happen. Besides we probably will some day have a computer that can work as a doctor, but it would one incredibly complicated piece of technology. When we get to the day when we know enough of medicine that it becomes a science rather than an art.
»Lynx Posted November 25, 2008 Report Posted November 25, 2008 (edited) But for 95% of the cases that are diagnosed every day, they can simply be text-book diagnosed. The other 5% are what you might call an 'art' or whatever, but going by the whole 'computers can be doctors' analogy, that 5% of hard-to-diagnose cases is often hard to diagnose due to there only being a few other reported cases, or last known cases only occurring many years before, and therefore not exactly on the medical syllabus. The only reasons it makes it very hard for a computer to diagnose any problems is because 95% of people don't know what they're feeling, or they lie about embarrassing problems, or hide other facts for whatever other reasons. Doctors often catch out these mistakes and make decisions around this - to get a computer program to do the same is impossible. Does this make being a medical practitioner an art? Hardly, it just means that we don't yet have the technology to carry out these kinds of tasks, and even if we did it would be far too impractical to implement. Aside from that, the ethical reasons for this not being the case is far more apparent - not many people want to talk to computers, and that would be the case here. I think that you've missed the whole 'computers can be doctors' analogy, obviously we need doctors as there are so many other subliminal messages we get from people when we talk to them, and that's why doctors are much more proficient in handling diagnoses. You could weigh up the pros and cons of each argument, adding further entities and attributes for an eternity, and still have a pretty shit outcome. The day we have robot doctors is the day that the sky is no longer blue, the grass is no longer green and the water no longer flows downstream. (Not in our lifetime, anyway) -Lynx Edited November 25, 2008 by Lynx
Bak Posted November 25, 2008 Author Report Posted November 25, 2008 when computers are doctors who are we going to sue when they screw up?
CRe Posted November 25, 2008 Report Posted November 25, 2008 when computers are doctors who are we going to sue when they screw up? The engineers.
Bak Posted November 25, 2008 Author Report Posted November 25, 2008 software that comes with a warantee/guarantee? That'll be the day!
Aceflyer Posted November 25, 2008 Report Posted November 25, 2008 (edited) Lynx, I want a source for this 95%/5% figure you're bandying around. I also want a source for your claim that 95% of patients lie to their doctors. Edited November 25, 2008 by Aceflyer
»Lynx Posted November 26, 2008 Report Posted November 26, 2008 I feared that you'd pick on an obviously made up figure. Don't be such an analytical twat... Or, yourself. Just use logic. -Lynx
»Ducky Posted November 26, 2008 Report Posted November 26, 2008 He didn't say 95% of people lie to their doctors. because 95% of people don't know what they're feeling, or they lie about embarrassing problems, or hide other facts for whatever other reasons. And while it's probably not 95%, I would consider it a high percentage. How many people do you know that can walk into a doctors office and simply state "Oh, My gull bladder feels inflamed." They don't know that, hell.. Most people can't even tell where any of their organs are.That's where a computer analogy is lost. It has no methodology to determine a diagnosis where as a doctor can physically touch you to even determine the generic basis of a claim.
Recommended Posts