3/4 of doctors believe in God...

[Zero]

Your second option isn't necessarily true. All procedures must be good for this to be true. If a doctor refuses to perform a circumcision because he sees no apparent benefits and several apparent detriments, is he doing something wrong? Perhaps. If he was asked to perform said procedure, and refused, then he isn't doing everythng asked of him. However, the world is not worse because he didn't do the procedure.

[mr friendly guy]

It's been demonstrated that doctors can let their religious beliefs influence if they choose to perform elective procedures or not,

Actually, that point is still being contested. But since you think they should be able to refuse to perform elective procedures, why don't you justify it?

Continuing on ( I had to cut his sentence in 2 since it raised 2 points I wanted to address separately).

but have there been any examples shown where this 55% caused specific harm by actually performing a procedure wrong due to religious beliefs?

Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick.

NO ONE CLAIMED THAT BECAUSE 55% OF DOCTORS BELIEVE RELIGION AFFECTS THEIR PRACTICE AUTOMATICALLY LEADS TO 55% CAUSING HARM.
This is just a strawman you made up.

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.

More of the "because its not widespread, we don't have to worry about it" argument. But I am sure off the top of my head I can think of other fields of medicine where religion could and has come into conflict with it (fortuantely most of them haven't involved medical staff yet).

Lets see

1. refusal for blood transfusions (Jehova's witnesses). Nope, doesn't sound like reproductive medicine to me.

2. Forcing a virtual corpse to live on life support (Doctors who supported Terry Schiavo's parents). Sounds more like intensive care medicine. Not a chance in hell of reproduction.

3. Refusal for kids to be vaccinated (certain Christian sects in the US because "God will provide"). Tell me what has this got to do with reproductive medicine?

4. Psychiatry are TEH EVIL and you should avoid their drugs (Scientology). I am sure there is a reproductive medicine related issue somewhere? I just can't seem to find it.

[Zero]

Only one of those will actually ever apply to doctors. If you don't believe in blood transfusion, vaccination, or psychiatry and the medications involved, you're not going to become a doctor, and if you are, you won't stay one long, unless you're willing to compromise your beliefs for the sake of keeping your job. Can you provide examples of doctors doing these things? I've heard in all cases of parents saying to withold treatment, but I haven't heard of such a case involving a doctor.

As for forcing a vortual corpse to live on life support... this is something I forgot. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Even so, who's harmed by keeping a braindead person alive with life support? The only issue I see her is finance.

[mr friendly guy]

Your second option isn't necessarily true. All procedures must be good for this to be true. If a doctor refuses to perform a circumcision because he sees no apparent benefits and several apparent detriments, is he doing something wrong? Perhaps. If he was asked to perform said procedure, and refused, then he isn't doing everythng asked of him. However, the world is not worse because he didn't do the procedure.

emphasise mine

And previously I wrote

As to what I would do about it? Prevent doctors from making decisions based on their religious values. That is decisions are made based on

1) clinical findings

<snip>.

[Zero]

Even so, the parents will likely find another man to do the same procedure. The world is neither better or worse. How is this different from what you showed in the article above? What are the practical benefits of artificial insemination? If the doctor has moral issues with following through with the procedure based on the woman's lifestyle, why should be be forced to go through with said procedure? Who's harmed by his refusal to go through with it? Why does this make him a worse doctor?

[PainRack]

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.

The problem is, can you automatically link religious motivation to non-professionalism?

[Firefox]

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?

You said it wasn't an issue unless the person dies. Want me to remind you again?

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

Again, emphasis mine.

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.

Sigh...

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

This has been expanded to include potential harms for practical reasons.

How about the potential harm of refusing to dispense emergency contraception, fucktard?

[General Zod]

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.

Are you stupid or are you just not paying attention here? A professional is expected to be able to perform -all- the functions required of his job, regardless of his moral compunctions otherwise. If he can't perform the required aspects, then he shouldn't be in that job period. Prescribing pills to someone who can show a demonstrable need for them is a part of a doctor's required duties. It's not their place to shove their morality down a patients' throat.

Do you believe that all religious doctors should be fired?

Again with the not paying attention. I don't give a flying fuck if they believe in wazoo the magical pink hippo, PROVIDED IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THEIR JOB. How fucking difficult is this to grasp?

[Lord of the Abyss]

The problem is, can you automatically link religious motivation to non-professionalism?

As I and others have repeatedly said, yes, if it affects how they do their jobs. Again, if "religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine", they are by definition compremising medical standards.

If it does not affect how they do their job, I don't care. If they want to be stupid in their personal lives, it's not my business. When they impose that stupidity on me then, yes, it is my business.

[Zero]

You said it wasn't an issue unless the person dies. Want me to remind you again?

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

Again, emphasis mine.

Then I misspoke. I haven't been here so long as many of you, and I'm not good at watching every word I say. Either way, can you understand that saying "but she didn't die" doesn't necessarily equate to "my only standards of doctors is that nobody gets killed"? I was trying to point out that there were no specific disadvantages imposed on the woman because of the doctor's refusal of her service.

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.

How about the potential harm of refusing to dispense emergency contraception, fucktard?

I've already adressed this several times. I don't think this is the same situation, primarily because there's a fairly limited time that emergency contraception is usefull.

As I and others have repeatedly said, yes, if it affects how they do their jobs. Again, if "religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine", they are by definition compremising medical standards.

Religious people tend to want to believe that their religious beliefs affect every aspect of their lives. It doesn't mean that they'll actually alter the way they practice, except for, as has been shown, in the cases of refusing service in elective non-vital non-emergency procedures. Even in the case shown, the doctors actually referred her to another specialist, so what was lost? What medical standards did they compromise? AMA policy even agrees with them here. If doctors take issue with a procedure that doesn't have to be done and isn't being done to save a life, and can actually refer said patient to another specialist, what medical standards are being compromised?

If it does not affect how they do their job, I don't care. If they want to be stupid in their personal lives, it's not my business. When they impose that stupidity on me then, yes, it is my business.

Actually, it's you who wants THEM to perform all possible services irreguardless of what they believe, and if they don't wish to perform, they're required to refer you to another specialist, so I'd say you're trying to control them more then they're trying to force anything onto you.

Are you stupid or are you just not paying attention here? A professional is expected to be able to perform -all- the functions required of his job, regardless of his moral compunctions otherwise. If he can't perform the required aspects, then he shouldn't be in that job period. Prescribing pills to someone who can show a demonstrable need for them is a part of a doctor's required duties. It's not their place to shove their morality down a patients' throat.

It's you who actually wants them to do what you want irreguardless of how they feel about it. The AMA recognizes the right of doctors to choose what they do based on their personal beliefs. Why should you have the right to force a doctor to perform elective procedures for you that aren't necessary for keeping you alive or well?

[General Zod]

It's you who actually wants them to do what you want irreguardless of how they feel about it. The AMA recognizes the right of doctors to choose what they do based on their personal beliefs.

I'm wanting them to do their job you fucking dimwit, not to perform tasks that are completely outside their job description.

Why should you have the right to force a doctor to perform elective procedures for you that aren't necessary for keeping you alive or well?

Here's a better question. What the fuck gives doctors the right to shove their morality down a patient's throat when that patient can show a demonstrable need for the medication, drug or service that's well within the doctor's capability and job duties to provide?

[Lord of the Abyss]

What if another specialist isn't availible ? What if the patient can't reach / afford that specialist ? You talk like medical specialists were mass produced and stockpiled in warehouses.

Refusing someone a medical procedure in the name of religion is stupid, unthical and tyrannical. Frankly, a doctor who does so should be tossed out of the profession in my opinion.

The fact that they are motivated by religion is no defense;since religion has no factual or logical basis, it isn't a sufficent defense for anything.

[Zero]

The doctor would be required by law to find another specialist to take care of the desired operation. They're neither stopping you from getting said operation, or forcing their morality down your throat, merely maintaining their own.

[General Zod]

The doctor would be required by law to find another specialist to take care of the desired operation. They're neither stopping you from getting said operation, or forcing their morality down your throat, merely maintaining their own.

How about addressing one of my earlier points? What if they're the only doctor nearby that the person needing the operation/medication/procedure can visit? In such a situation they're clearly forcing their beliefs down another person's throat by refusing them treatment they can't find anywhere else.

Simply because there's other doctors the patient can be referred to doesn't make what the doctor is doing any more acceptable, as he's clearly being negligent to his duties. In a professional environment, those typically come well before personal religious delusions.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The doctor would be required by law to find another specialist to take care of the desired operation. They're neither stopping you from getting said operation, or forcing their morality down your throat, merely maintaining their own.

I'll repeat it again : What-if-there-is-none-available. What if the alternatives are beyond the patients reach or wealth ?

This is what the right has been doing with abortion; they make doctors who can and will perform them so rare and scattered that many poor women can't get it done. Especially with "waiting periods" which means the women need to do it twice.

The same principle holds here; making a service unavailable is the same as outlawing it; it's just less honest.

[Zero]

How about addressing one of my earlier points? What if they're the only doctor nearby that the person needing the operation/medication/procedure can visit? In such a situation they're clearly forcing their beliefs down another person's throat by refusing them treatment they can't find anywhere else.

Simply because there's other doctors the patient can be referred to doesn't make what the doctor is doing any more acceptable, as he's clearly being negligent to his duties. In a professional environment, those typically come well before personal religious delusions.

He's not being negligent if he does refer him to another specialist. What reasons would a person be unable to go to another doctor? Even so, should a doctor be forced by their patient to compromise whatever moral values they have, religious or no? If the surgury isn't something necessary for the patient's well-being, or for the patient to live, why should the doctor be forced to suddenly drop whatever moral inhibitions they have for the sake of what some other guy wants?

[Zero]

I'll repeat it again : What-if-there-is-none-available. What if the alternatives are beyond the patients reach or wealth ?

This is what the right has been doing with abortion; they make doctors who can and will perform them so rare and scattered that many poor women can't get it done. Especially with "waiting periods" which means the women need to do it twice.

The same principle holds here; making a service unavailable is the same as outlawing it; it's just less honest.

I'll admit, this is an angle I hadn't considered. Making a service so rare as to be unavailable is certainly wrong. I personally would never consider abortion, and would never permit myself to actually do something like that, but forcing that onto everyone by making doctors willing to perform rare is obviously wrong. It still doesn't seem right to force a doctor to do procedures that go against their own concepts of right and wrong. I must admit, I'm a bit unsure of this situation.

[Firefox]

Then I misspoke. I haven't been here so long as many of you, and I'm not good at watching every word I say. Either way, can you understand that saying "but she didn't die" doesn't necessarily equate to "my only standards of doctors is that nobody gets killed"? I was trying to point out that there were no specific disadvantages imposed on the woman because of the doctor's refusal of her service.

Nice to see you backpedal in light of your "misspoken" statements being trounced to dust.

I've already adressed this several times. I don't think this is the same situation, primarily because there's a fairly limited time that emergency contraception is usefull.

The timetable is irrelevant, moron. If a doctor or pharmacist refuses treatment that eventually leads to injury or death, it is his fucking fault for failing to provide needed services.

[General Zod]

He's not being negligent if he does refer him to another specialist. What reasons would a person be unable to go to another doctor? Even so, should a doctor be forced by their patient to compromise whatever moral values they have, religious or no?

Perhaps they're relatively poor and only certain doctors accept their insurance. Perhaps they lack the ability to travel any great distances, and the only other doctors that can be recommended are in over 100 miles away.

If the surgury isn't something necessary for the patient's well-being, or for the patient to live, why should the doctor be forced to suddenly drop whatever moral inhibitions they have for the sake of what some other guy wants?

The sake of what some other guy wants? They're the fucking patient, shit for brains. A doctor is required to provide whatever care the patient can show a need for that is reasonably within their abilities. Providing morning-after pills is not going to harm the doctor in any way, shape or form. However being refused birth control pills may result in harm to the patient.

Oh, and how about actually addressing my point about what gives the doctor a right to shove their morality down a patients' throat, instead of constantly skirting it?

[Zero]

I concede. Doctors shouldn't be able to force their notions of morality down other people's throats. However, I don't see a suitable solution, so I'm still unsure of several things.

[Lord of the Abyss]

He's not being negligent if he does refer him to another specialist. What reasons would a person be unable to go to another doctor?

See my several previous posts on this.

Even so, should a doctor be forced by their patient to compromise whatever moral values they have, religious or no? If the surgury isn't something necessary for the patient's well-being, or for the patient to live, why should the doctor be forced to suddenly drop whatever moral inhibitions they have for the sake of what some other guy wants?

Because a doctor is supposed to do what the patient wants, not what he wants. If I'm dying in agony of cancer, I don't want some "Good Christian" keeping me alive as long as possible in as much pain as possible because suffering is a virtue and giving me more pain meds violates his precious religious sensibilties. The fact that he thinks he's doing it "for his own good" won't make it hurt any less.

[General Zod]

I concede. Doctors shouldn't be able to force their notions of morality down other people's throats. However, I don't see a suitable solution, so I'm still unsure of several things.

The solution is very, very simple. Doctors need to put their professionalism above their pet religious beliefs.

[Zero]

This is true, but if you were asked to perform a duty that went against something you felt very strongly, would you actually be able to? I mean, I think that if doctors were to try and force themselves to comitt to procedures that they weren't readily willing to do, the possibility of a botched procedure increases. It seems to me that it should be alright for a doctor to refuse a procedure, for the sake of his own freedoms, but it isn't at all right to force a larger population to adhere to your notions of right and wrong. I'm just a bit confused..

[Firefox]

This is true, but if you were asked to perform a duty that went against something you felt very strongly, would you actually be able to?

That's easy to answer, too: treat the patient, or find a new job that's more in line with your personal beliefs.

[General Zod]

This is true, but if you were asked to perform a duty that went against something you felt very strongly, would you actually be able to? I mean, I think that if doctors were to try and force themselves to comitt to procedures that they weren't readily willing to do, the possibility of a botched procedure increases. It seems to me that it should be alright for a doctor to refuse a procedure, for the sake of his own freedoms, but it isn't at all right to force a larger population to adhere to your notions of right and wrong. I'm just a bit confused..

Ah, I see you still don't get it. It's apart of their fucking job. Doctors should know they might be asked to perform this type of duty when they agree to sign on. Refusing to perform this job is a negligence of duty. When someone signs on for -any- job, they're expected to be able to perform all functions of it that they are qualified for. If they have moral compunctions with parts of that job, then they shouldn't be doing it. This is not rocket science here.