3/4 of doctors believe in God...

[The Kernel]

We can't simply dismiss a statement like "religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine" as being too ambiguous when it comes to doctors. Medicine relies heavily on professionalism; cease to be professional and the patient gets hurt. Nothing should affect how they practice medicine besides what is in the best interests of the patient.

Take the US Supreme Court for example. I'm sure if you asked them, many of them would say they have political leanings, but wouldn't you bid a tad frightened if half of them said that their political leanings influence the way they do their jobs?

Religion has no place in medicine whatsoever, caring for the patient to the best of ones ability is the only thing that matters.

[Zero]

It is fucked up that they discriminated against her, but she didn't die.

So in short, a doctor can hurt people all he likes, as long as he doesn't KILL them, and you will still insist on making your bullshit apologist statements?

Refusing service for something such as this hurts her how, exactly? Did it cause her the amazing pain of having to seek service elsewhere, or some horrific mental trauma? After all, in america, as a homosexual, she's never been discriminated against. That's certain.

Glocksman already pointed out why this isn't the same as, say, letting a boy die because the people in the ambulance hated his race for religious reasons.

As for bullshit apologist statements... if I've made them, I've not intended to. What reason would I have to make apologetic statements at all?

[Darth Wong]

It is fucked up that they discriminated against her, but she didn't die.

So in short, a doctor can hurt people all he likes, as long as he doesn't KILL them, and you will still insist on making your bullshit apologist statements?

Refusing service for something such as this hurts her how, exactly? Did it cause her the amazing pain of having to seek service elsewhere, or some horrific mental trauma? After all, in america, as a homosexual, she's never been discriminated against. That's certain.

So by this logic, there's no harm in forcing blacks to drink from separate water fountains because, as you say, they can go to the other fountain? You're a fucking retard.

Glocksman already pointed out why this isn't the same as, say, letting a boy die because the people in the ambulance hated his race for religious reasons.

More repetition of your idiotic "if nobody dies then there's no harm" bullshit.

As for bullshit apologist statements... if I've made them, I've not intended to. What reason would I have to make apologetic statements at all?

Don't ask me; you're the fucktard making these statements.

[mr friendly guy]

So let's see, you're arguing that physicians should be forced to perform elective, non-lifesaving, non-emergency procedures that violate their religious beliefs?
<snip>

IMHO, patients don't have the right to force physicians to perform elective procedures if it violates their religious beliefs as long as the AMA policy quoted above is complied with.

Part of the job is to provide "elective, non-lifesaving, non-emergency" procedures. Since I am arguing that religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the job, explain why these should be an exemption.

By that logic I don't have to treat you for a large superficial laceration because its not an emergency and it certainly isn't life saving either.

[Glocksman]

So let's see, you're arguing that physicians should be forced to perform elective, non-lifesaving, non-emergency procedures that violate their religious beliefs?
<snip>

IMHO, patients don't have the right to force physicians to perform elective procedures if it violates their religious beliefs as long as the AMA policy quoted above is complied with.

Part of the job is to provide "elective, non-lifesaving, non-emergency" procedures. Since I am arguing that religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the job, explain why these should be an exemption.

By that logic I don't have to treat you for a large superficial laceration because its not an emergency and it certainly isn't life saving either.

And the AMA recognizes that in certain situations, a doctor may have ethical, religious, or moral reasons to refuse to provide a service.
Like all rights, the right to refuse service isn't absolute.

If in your example, the wound became infected because you refused treatment and refused to make alternate arrangements, then I can sue your ass off for malpractice.

OTOH, if I wanted to become pregnant (and that'd be a medical first ), I shouldn't be able to do a damned thing if my doctor said 'I won't help you as I don't think single men should be pregnant, but you can go see this doc for help'.

[Darth Wong]

If in your example, the wound became infected because you refused treatment and refused to make alternate arrangements, then I can sue your ass off for malpractice.

Who gives a shit whether you can sue? The question is whether their religious beliefs negatively affect their job performance, and it clearly does.

[mr friendly guy]

And the AMA recognizes that in certain situations, a doctor may have ethical, religious, or moral reasons to refuse to provide a service.
Like all rights, the right to refuse service isn't absolute.

You are just repeating your claim. Why should this exception be allowed given that it is affecting the ability of the doctor to do their job?

If in your example, the wound became infected because you refused treatment and refused to make alternate arrangements, then I can sue your ass off for malpractice.

How does making alternative arrangements absolve me of failure to do my duty when I am clearly capable of doing it?

Of course problems may also arise if the doctor is the only doctor locally (ie rural areas), the patient has to meet the new doctor and repeat some of the same stuff again, and the if it involves an elective procedure, the patient is going to be put at the back of the waiting list.
But patient suffering for a bit longer doesn't matter as long as the right to refuse on "religious belief" is preserved right?

[Zero]

So by this logic, there's no harm in forcing blacks to drink from separate water fountains because, as you say, they can go to the other fountain? You're a fucking retard.

A much better analogy would be a cab driver refusing a man service because he disagrees with the way the man looks. It doesn't make the cab driver a better driver, but should he be forced to pick up all people irreguardless?

More repetition of your idiotic "if nobody dies then there's no harm" bullshit.

No, my 'bullshit' as you call it is that if nobody's harmed, then there's no harm.

Don't ask me; you're the fucktard making these statements.

It simply gets old at times when people seem to immediately jump to the conclusion that I must be a christian apologist any time I disagree with something said in opposition to religion. I recognize that the ignorance and bigotry supported by religion is an evil, but I also recognize that religion has actually helped many through tough times. A crutch isn't always a bad thing, and when it doesn't cause any harm, it bugs me to see people berate it endlessly. I'm an atheist, so I'd appreciate it if I got fewer accusations of 'crying oppression,' or of specifically having any affiliation to any religion at all. Just has gotten annoying, and your claim of apologetic statements brought it up in my mind. I know that this is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but I felt it must be said.

[PainRack]

If bad medical care causes me permanent injury or death, the fact that it's illegal won't do me a hell of a lot of good.

Besides, the courts are far more tolerant of bad behavior if you slap the "God" brand name on it.

Its not about the Courts. The fact is, doctors are already taught, told, and have the legal arm of the law working against them NOT to let personal values and beliefs affect their medical judgement. In other words, it doesn't matter whether you have 100% of doctors who are relgious, all it matters is that the non-judgemental nature of medicine remains intact and this nature hasn't been removed yet.

Furthermore, health-care is now regimented and documented, to the extent that doctors are there to find out what is wrong with you and then they go for the "standard" treatment plan. So, you CAN"T be judgemental.

[Glocksman]

You are just repeating your claim. Why should this exception be allowed given that it is affecting the ability of the doctor to do their job?

It's an appeal to authority, I know, but the AMA already recognizes the right of a physician to refuse service under certain circumstances.

You're the one wanting to change the status quo, therefore you're the one that has to make a case that the greater good is served by forcing a doctor to work against his ethical or moral code.

Like I said, not all rights are absolute, but in cases like the fertility clinic one, the doctors are well within their rights to refuse to inseminate the woman as long as they give her timely notice and refer her to someone who can help her.

[General Zod]

No, my 'bullshit' as you call it is that if nobody's harmed, then there's no harm.

So as long as nobody gets harmed, you clearly don't have a problem with doctors being grossly negligent, incompetent, or in general refusing to perform their job?

[Flagg]

Well you have to admit, that's very Christian of him.

[Firefox]

So wait, Zero's argument would imply that a rape victim seeking emergency contraception is not harmed by a pharmacist or doctor refusing to give her said medication?

[Lord of the Abyss]

So wait, Zero's argument would imply that a rape victim seeking emergency contraception is not harmed by a pharmacist or doctor refusing to give her said medication?

Well, the usual arguement is that emergency contraception would be a "double tragedy".

To a true Christian, the woman matters not at all; she is a Daughter of Eve, evil incarnate.

Besides, she probably led him on anyway.

[Firefox]

I'm interested in knowing if Zero thinks that withholding treatment on moral grounds is the same as botching a surgical procedure, even though neither resulted in the patient's death.

[Zero]

So as long as nobody gets harmed, you clearly don't have a problem with doctors being grossly negligent, incompetent, or in general refusing to perform their job?

Only the refusal part. Gross negligence and incompetence can cause people to be harmed, even if it doesn't immediately. Refusal of service for non-vital non-elective procedures isn't going to hurt anybody.

So wait, Zero's argument would imply that a rape victim seeking emergency contraception is not harmed by a pharmacist or doctor refusing to give her said medication?

No, this is more clearly wrong as said situation has a much more immediate time limit to it.

I'm interested in knowing if Zero thinks that withholding treatment on moral grounds is the same as botching a surgical procedure, even though neither resulted in the patient's death.

Refusing service on moral grounds is the same as botching surgery HOW? When you're botching a surgery, you're screwing up something you've already agreed to do. There are many potential harms involved. If you refuse service on moral grounds for a non-vital non-elective procedure, who's going to get hurt? Who can be hurt, rather?

[General Zod]

So as long as nobody gets harmed, you clearly don't have a problem with doctors being grossly negligent, incompetent, or in general refusing to perform their job?

Only the refusal part. Gross negligence and incompetence can cause people to be harmed, even if it doesn't immediately. Refusal of service for non-vital non-elective procedures isn't going to hurt anybody.

Notice the bold highlighted part. Supposing someone had refused a rape victim morning after pills and she was unable to get a prescription elsewhere. Come childbirth, she dies due to pregnancy complications. By your logic, that doctor has committed acts which can cause someone to be harmed, even though it wasn't immediate.

Doctors, or hell, pretty much who refuse to perform apart of their required, standard job duties due to moral compunctions should not be in that line of work.

[Firefox]

No, this is more clearly wrong as said situation has a much more immediate time limit to it.

Yet a pharmacist can refuse emergency contraception if the condom breaks?

Refusing service on moral grounds is the same as botching surgery HOW? When you're botching a surgery, you're screwing up something you've already agreed to do. There are many potential harms involved. If you refuse service on moral grounds for a non-vital non-elective procedure, who's going to get hurt? Who can be hurt, rather?

Remember this?

It is fucked up that they discriminated against her, but she didn't die.

Emphasis mine. As you said earlier, if no one's killed, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Zero]

Yet a pharmacist can refuse emergency contraception if the condom breaks?

I already have stated it was wrong for a man to refuse a woman morning after pills. I agree that this is wrong because of the immediacy to it. That's what my statement was reguarding... why did you bring it up in reguards to my statement?

Emphasis mine. As you said earlier, if no one's killed, it shouldn't be a problem.

I didn't say that if nobodys killed, it isn't a problem. If I did, I mispoke. My intention has always been to say that if nobody's harmed, then it's not an issue. This has been expanded to include potential harms for practical reasons.

Notice the bold highlighted part. Supposing someone had refused a rape victim morning after pills and she was unable to get a prescription elsewhere. Come childbirth, she dies due to pregnancy complications. By your logic, that doctor has committed acts which can cause someone to be harmed, even though it wasn't immediate.

I already said that refusing rape victims morning after pills is still considered wrong to me, as these pills will only work within a reasonably small timeframe. Refusing service, in this case, may lead to later harms, as you've said. Essentially, I agree with you, in this case. I may not have made that clear above.

, or hell, pretty much who refuse to perform apart of their required, standard job duties due to moral compunctions should not be in that line of work.

I agree. If one has moral disagreements with something involved in their line of work, then they should be in another line of work. However, I don't believe a man with moral disagreements with certain aspects of his work should be fired, he simply shouldn't work with those aspects. Do you believe that all religious doctors should be fired?

[Lord of the Abyss]

I agree. If one has moral disagreements with something involved in their line of work, then they should be in another line of work. However, I don't believe a man with moral disagreements with certain aspects of his work should be fired, he simply shouldn't work with those aspects. Do you believe that all religious doctors should be fired?

If the "religious docters" in question let their religious feelings override good medical practice then, yes they should be fired. They have proven themselves unfit for the job.

[Zero]

What do you mean by overriding good medical practice? I've seen above an example of a doctor refusing service because of religion, but no examples of a doctor actually doing a job he accepts worse due to his beliefs. Does 'good medical pracitce' include accepting all procedures, even those that aren't necessary to the health or well-being of another? If so, then do you really believe doctors should be free to make decisions at all?

[Lord of the Abyss]

What do you mean by overriding good medical practice?

The article in the OP says that "Fifty-five percent of respondents said that their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine". Medicine is scientific; religion is not. If doctors let religion affect how they practice medicine, they are by definition overriding good medical practice.

I wouldn't want to drive across a bridge designed by an architect who let their religious beliefs influence how they practice architecture; the Bible is not a good guide for building any more that it is for medicine.

Religion and the real world do not mix well, and medicine is real.

[Zero]

Religious people prefer to believe that their religion affects all facets of their lives, whether it does or not. It's been demonstrated that doctors can let their religious beliefs influence if they choose to perform elective procedures or not, but have there been any examples shown where this 55% caused specific harm by actually performing a procedure wrong due to religious beliefs? Honestly, most times, religious beliefs and medical practices will have nothing to do with each other. They only really touch in the realms of medicine dealing with reproduction.

[Nephtys]

Religious people prefer to believe that their religion affects all facets of their lives, whether it does or not. It's been demonstrated that doctors can let their religious beliefs influence if they choose to perform elective procedures or not, but have there been any examples shown where this 55% caused specific harm by actually performing a procedure wrong due to religious beliefs? Honestly, most times, religious beliefs and medical practices will have nothing to do with each other. They only really touch in the realms of medicine dealing with reproduction.

Let's see. Medicine = Science. Religion != Science. If you put any religion at all in your actual operation, not morality or whatever behind the job, you're screwing up. If you're praying instead of injecting, you're screwing up.

Because there is no statistic about this, does not mean it's not bad. If any doctor does something contrary to usual treatment on his or her own personal religious grounds, that's not fair to the patient, patient's family or medical community.

[mr friendly guy]

You are just repeating your claim. Why should this exception be allowed given that it is affecting the ability of the doctor to do their job?

It's an appeal to authority, I know, but the AMA already recognizes the right of a physician to refuse service under certain circumstances.

Hmm. Admitting your argument is based on a logical fallacy is supposed to help your position because...

You're the one wanting to change the status quo, therefore you're the one that has to make a case that the greater good is served by forcing a doctor to work against his ethical or moral code.

Actually one would think that the default for jobs is to perform the tasks associated with that job competently. If the AMA is going to make an exception to the default, they should justify it. But I will play it your way

1. Job involves certain procedures whether they are emergency or non emergency

2. Providing these procedures leads to an improvement in patient well being.

3. It follows therefore not performing these tasks either by refusing or doing it incompetently leads to a failure in the improvement of patient well being.

4. No improvement in patient well being = no benefit to the "greater good"
Improvement in patient well being = benefit of the "greater good"

If you think of greater good as positive benefits to human beings, that I have just shown why providing services lead to an improvement.

And frankly, as it has been stated before, if you are unwilling to perform your job, get another one. No one forced them to become doctors.