Medical Ethics and Religious beliefs.

[Cleopatra]

While discussing people's attitude towards enterprises that their owners advertise their religious beliefs in a thread started by Tricky here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870115445#post1870115445) , a very interesting topic came on the surface that we agreed that deserves a thread of its own: the relation between Religious beliefs and Medical Ethics.

For a moment I was tempted to expand the discussion in practicing Law but the debate would get out of control not to mention that many aspects of this issue have been exhausted in discussions started by ceo_esq.

As always, using my simple English I will put the issue in a simple way :)

First of all. Can we talk about a relation between religious beliefs and medical ethics or it is an a priori contradiction?


Do doctors have the right to have religious beliefs when they are practicing their profession?

Can we distinguish doctors who practice Medicine in private from those that they practice Medicine in public Hospitals? (Maybe this distinction does not exist in the States but it does in many European countries).

Can we simply suggest that since we can choose our doctors they can apply their religious beliefs in their science and it's only up to us to avoid doctors who let their religious beliefs interfere in their science?

Abortion and birth control were the major points that attracted our interest in the previous discussion.

Has a doctor the right to deny abortion or contraception based only on his religious beliefs?

Generally speaking; do doctors have the right to let their religious beliefs dictate the way the should practice Medicine?

[Skeptical Greg]

Generally speaking;Do doctors have the right to let their religious beliefs dictate the way the should practice Medicine

Sure they do.. It is up to the patient to seek council from doctors who give sound medical advice, irrespective of their philisophical leanings..

Why would anyone continue to see a doctor who advised them contrary to their (the patients) religious beliefs.. ( or lack thereof.. )

[MoeFaux]

New thread, same opinion.
No, doctors should not force their religious beliefs on thier patients.

And I get testy when questioned about why a woman should use birth control. Even if it's NOT for "medical reasons", even if it's just some teenage slut that doesn't want to get knocked up, so what? It's not the doctors place to say that she shoudn't be on it, unless it would be detrimental to her health.

[Ossai]

Diogenes
Sure they do.. It is up to the patient to seek council from doctors who give sound medical advice, irrespective of their philisophical leanings.. In theory, yes. But not all doctors advertise their philosophy/religion and most patients aren't knowledgeable enough to know that information is being held back.

Ossai

[Dr. Imago]

Wow, not going to be able to swallow all of this in one bite...

Here's my view, based on my current training, as neatly and tidily (read that - succinctly) as I can put it:

1) Doctor's have an obligation to treat the patient without prejudice. This means essentially that, even if the child rapist walks in the door with a massive, potentially fatal axe wound from the father who just caught him, the doctor is obliged to provide treatment to the best of his/her ability. Period. Same rules apply for religious beliefs.

2) Treatment is about the patient, not the doctor. Right now, I'm rotating with devout Muslims, born-again Christians, Buddhists, atheists, Jews (etc.) and it is absolutely forbidden to discuss anything pertaining to the treating person's beliefs with a patient.

3) Here's a little secret that a lot of lay people don't realize. This is a principle that I think all excellent doctors I've seen so far adhere to. There is absolutely no personal investment in patients. What you believe doesn't matter to me; it is just something that makes you you. In line with #1, I don't care if you are a rampant drug abuser who thinks Satan rules. I'm not personally invested in you. Your problems are not my problems. I do, however, have a fiduciary responsibility to treat you to the best of my abilities. That's where our relationship starts and finishes. I think because of the nature of the doctor-patient relationship (e.g., sharing very personal and sometimes intimate details of an illness, the "weak" position that the patient is in requiring them to ask for help, etc.), some patients perceive a bond that isn't necessarily there. It's understandable. Physicians are trained to deal with that. And, we do not allow that transference, the psychological term for it, to become countertransference.

4) Yes, we are biased creatures. Good clinicians recognize their bias, deal with it, and move forward. The part religion plays is no different than other examples I've listed above.

I hope that answers your questions, albeit in a more roundabout sort of way. Don't misunderstand me, though. It's not that we don't like our patients or we attempt to distance ourselves from them or whatever. It's just that the doctor-patient relationship is very different from the doctor side, for obvious reasons. Most of you can appreciate that probably, but unless you experience it you may not be able to fully understand the magnitude of what I'm saying.

Religious belief has no bearing on the practice of medicine. If someone doesn't believe in abortions, for example, then they should not go into that field of practice (i.e., OB/Gyn clinic that advocates for freedom of choice). In the cases where it does (by some individuals who can't resist letting it interfere), there is a high likelihood of patient complaints, unofficial (or even official) reprimands, and eventual questioning of fitness to practice.

-TT

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
New thread, same opinion.
No, doctors should not force their religious beliefs on thier patients.

And I get testy when questioned about why a woman should use birth control. Even if it's NOT for "medical reasons", even if it's just some teenage slut that doesn't want to get knocked up, so what? It's not the doctors place to say that she shoudn't be on it, unless it would be detrimental to her health.

Well, the best gynecologist of Athens happens to be a devoted Christian...

When I first visited his office I thought I was in a church after seeing the number of icons that decorated the walls...

Also, he didn't have the (in)famous chair because he thought that it was humiliating for women (did he imply that his colleagues enjoying humiliating women?I don't know.).

Although his credentials were more than excellent and although I am not an atheist but someone who stands by moral beliefs dictated by the church, I didn't trust him especially when he gave me to read a brochure of the church. He didn't perform abortions but he was prescribing the pill after asking detailed questions on why you need it , especially if you were married ( "excuse me? " )

I thought that it was not appropriate for a doctor to be so openly religious. I just lost my trust in him.

I think that doctors of all people should leave their religious or political beliefs out of the Hospitals regardless if they choose to take the wise Hippocratic Oath or not.

There are times that we can choose our doctors but there are many occasions that we are driven to the hospital unconscious without having the option to choose the physician. What about this case?

Who would want to be operated by somebody who takes orders by the Bible?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Sure they do.. It is up to the patient to seek council from doctors who give sound medical advice, irrespective of their philisophical leanings..

Why would anyone continue to see a doctor who advised them contrary to their (the patients) religious beliefs.. ( or lack thereof.. )

I can´t let that stand as it is.

What about doctors that don´t parade their faith about, but still fashion their medical advice after it?

For example, you have a fundie doctor advising women/girls not to use contraceptives because they´d contract HIV or develop cancer if they did. No matter if he believes that BS himself - his faith might lead him to lying to these women to "save their souls".

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

There are times that we can choose our doctors but there are many occasions that we are driven to the hospital unconscious without having the option to choose the physician. What about this case?
Who would want to be operated by somebody who takes orders by the Bible?

The latter question is a very good point. I don't want someone waving a chicken over me instead of relying on medical science.

And as for the question before that, well, that just proves why it's important to have a living will and to let your friends and relatives know your wishes.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I thought that it was not appropriate for a doctor to be so openly religious. I just lost my trust in him.

And, you have your answer then. This is not the doctor for you. I agree with you as well. Skill and knowledge is only about 50% of being a doctor. A large part of it is how you interact with your patients. It's amazing the things a patient will forgive if you talk with them respectfully, interact with them professionally, and treat them with dignity. If they like you, they won't sue. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
There are times that we can choose our doctors but there are many occasions that we are driven to the hospital unconscious without having the option to choose the physician. What about this case?

If you are incapacitated, you should receive the best medical care per your wishes. This should happen regardless of someone's personal beliefs.

I highly suggest that anyone who doesn't have one establish a living will or medical proxy, in writing (check your state's or country's laws), that clearly states who's in charge of your decisions and what you want done in such cases where you can't make decisions on your own. It doesn't matter if you are 25 and healthy or 85 with advanced cancer. Do this. This is, bar none, the most powerful document you can have in this case.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Who would want to be operated by somebody who takes orders by the Bible?

You'd be surprised. A lot of great doctors are also very religious. Most of the time, you wouldn't know it (and this is the way it should be). Personally, I could never reconcile what I know from the bible and what I know from science. That's why I've chosen science as my "path to truth". However, I would never hold back or alter my care to a patient based on their beliefs.

Sounds like you ran into someone who's forgotten this.

-TT

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Cleopatra.

I hope you are well and happy.



Originally posted by Cleopatra

Do doctors have the right to have religious beliefs when they are practicing their profession?


Everyone has rights to have beliefs. The more accurate question if you will allow is do doctors have the right to force their beliefs on people they are to help.

That I would say no they do not.


Can we distinguish doctors who practice Medicine in private from those that they practice Medicine in public Hospitals? (Maybe this distinction does not exist in the States but it does in many European countries).

Distinguish how?

I do not believe a doctor in a private practice has the right to force their beliefs on others, as does not one in a Hospital.

The physical needs, well being of the person being treated is the concern of the doctors.

His Holiness the Dali lama said “*Genuine compassion is based not on our own projections and expectations, but rather on the rights of the other: irrespective of whether another person is a close friend or an enemy, as long as that person wishes for peace and happiness and wishes to overcome suffering, then on that basis we develop genuine concern for his or her problem.*

I believe the same is what should be in this case.

Can we simply suggest that since we can choose our doctors they can apply their religious beliefs in their science and it's only up to us to avoid doctors who let their religious beliefs interfere in their science? [/b]

There is more to it really I believe.

We can choose our doctors but regardless of their personal beliefs they must first address in an honest way the true health needs of the client using what science teaches them.

If they wish to also incorporate their beliefs that is their right if they advertise and ask the client first what their wish is to it.

I go to a doctors that is very Christian his waiting room is filled with Christian books. He has never mentioned to me or sought convert me or any such thing.

But if he did I would simply say with respect such was not respectful or what he should be doing, if he said it was how he “operated” if you will, I would simply find another Doctor.

If he asked me if he could pray for me when I left or when I was not there I would say please do if that will bring you happiness but do not do that rather then what is prescribed as science or excepted practice.

The choice is always ours no one can make you do, think, believe or feel anything.


Abortion and birth control were the major points that attracted our interest in the previous discussion.

Has a doctor the right to deny abortion or contraception based only on his religious beliefs?

Depends where he works, he may in a hospital such as the example given, he may in his own practice. Many hospitals would not allow him to. But the bottom line is when she left that Catholic hospital she needed to only go where she could get the contraception.

Generally speaking; do doctors have the right to let their religious beliefs dictate the way the should practice Medicine?

Too broad of a question.


They have no rights to force it on you.

[MoeFaux]

Glory just hit a home run in the old thread.

[Glory]

Third Twin,

First of all, thankyou so much for speaking oin this issue. Your perspective was sorely needed.

Now then, I have a question. Is there not a difference between private practice and working in a hospital? I don't like the idea that my insurance company may require that I be treated at a catholic hospital because information about reproductive health and/or birth control may be withheld from me. Even certain desired treatments may be withheld from me. For instance, the doctor who cared for me while I was pregnant suggested I try an IUD for birth control after the birth. I did and am quite satisfied with the result. Had I been under the care of a catholic hospital, she would not have been permitted to make such a suggestion. I never would have thought to ask any one else about it as I had only ever heard negative things about IUD's. Patients are dependant on their doctors to provide information that is not readily known to the lay public. Do you have an oppinion on this?

My position is that on ob/gyn who refuses to include birth control as part of his practice should find another specialty. His patients are not having all their medical needs met.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Glory just hit a home run in the old thread.

I like you!


Glory

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Glory

My position is that on ob/gyn who refuses to include birth control as part of his practice should find another specialty. His patients are not having all their medical needs met.

Glory
Greetings Glory.

Your post in the other thread was very good.

As to this above I do agree with your sentiment and fully agree with this part His patients are not having all their medical needs met.

I do not agree he should find another specialty, no one will be forced to go to him and there will be many who believe as he does and they have the tight to see and have him and he has the right to do as he does as long as he is not harming anyone.

I know you feel he is harming but the people who will, willing see him if being harmed do so to themselves.


To limit his rights or the rights of who believe as he does is as wrong as limiting the rights as who do not believe as he does.
Just what i believe.

[Fun2BFree]

Medicine is supposed to be evidence based...not faith based. Patients have the right to be treated as individuals with the right to make their own decisions about their health and well-being even if it is different from what the MD would recommend. The MD is there to provide all the information necessary to make an informed decision-not to make the decision. The MD is not forced to do something that would harm a patient but also the MD cannot force a patient to do something even if harm will come to the patient if a treatment is withheld per the patient's request.

Certain people do not believe in ever using hospice/palliative care (orthodox Jews)-such MD's do a disservice to their dying patients by imposing their faith based beliefs on patients in need of ALL their options.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Greetings Glory.

Your post in the other thread was very good.

As to this above I do agree with your sentiment and fully agree with this part

Thankyou.

I do not agree he should find another specialty, no one will be forced to go to him and there will be many who believe as he does and they have the tight to see and have him and he has the right to do as he does as long as he is not harming anyone.

I know you feel he is harming but the people who will, willing see him if being harmed do so to themselves.

I believe the harm comes from withholding information. Patients may not know what they are missing by seeing one doctor rather than another. If a doctor chooses to tell a patient that, while he does not prescribe it, birth control is available from other practitioners and may be of benefit to her, I don't have a problem. Like wise, I don't have a problem if the patient can make an informed choice. The problem is that doctors have the information and are exercising a level of control over that information that is out of bounds. Also, my hospital/insurance dillemma has yet to be addressed.

To limit his rights or the rights of who believe as he does is as wrong as limiting the rights as who do not believe as he does.
Just what i believe.

His rights are not at issue when he treats his patients. The patients rights are the higher priority. Nobody forced him to become an OB/GYN. I have commented before, Christian Scientists don't go to medical school and could not be admitted. This doesn't violate their rights.

Glory

[Cleopatra]

Without questioning anybody's sincerity here I still find hard to believe that there are medical institutions in USA that withhold information from their patients based on religious beliefs.

This sounds illegal to me.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings Cleopatra.

I hope you are well and happy.

I am very well thank you :)

Everyone has rights to have beliefs. The more accurate question if you will allow is do doctors have the right to force their beliefs on people they are to help.

The reason why I didn't pose this question is because I take for granted that doctors should not try to impose their beliefs, however what made me wondered was whether they have the right to let their beliefs blur their judgement.


We can choose our doctors

This is another issue. Of course I try to choose my doctor but am I in the position of doing so? I mean, what do I know of Medicine?

If they wish to also incorporate their beliefs that is their right if they advertise and ask the client first what their wish is to it.

This "incorporation" is exactly my problem :)

If he asked me if he could pray for me when I left or when I was not there I would say please do if that will bring you happiness but do not do that rather then what is prescribed as science or excepted practice.

Well, I met once in NYC a famous oncologist that he was an atheist and a patient I was escorting asked him if he prays before entering the operating room. He smiled and he replied: " No Sir I don't but if it makes you feel better you can pray for my well-being while I am operating you" :)

But the bottom line is when she left that Catholic hospital she needed to only go where she could get the contraception.

Well Glory asked a question I am interested in hearing the answer.

What if the Catholic Hospital is the only option you have?

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Glory.


Before I get into your post please know it is not that I do not agree with your principle position.

I believe the harm comes from withholding information. Patients may not know what they are missing by seeing one doctor rather than another.

I again agree with your principle position but we must look deeper as with all things. If someone in this country for example needs to attain simple information about birth control the problem does not lie with the Doctor it is with the family, school and the person themselves.

If they seek more detailed information and options concerning birth control and come to a DR that tells them not to use it because of his personal religious beliefs it is HER responsibility to leave and look for a professional.

One that will address her concerns and options not his or her personal ones. But again the responsibility lies with the client.

If a doctor chooses to tell a patient that, while he does not prescribe it, birth control is available from other practitioners and may be of benefit to her, I don't have a problem.

If he will not tell her of other practitioners it is still her responsibility to go looking. She made the decision to seek it out and I do not believe that she will be so easily deterred because he may say he does not believe in it.

But if she is, it is her fault.

The problem is that doctors have the information and are exercising a level of control over that information that is out of bounds. Also, my hospital/insurance dillemma has yet to be addressed.

I understand what you are saying but the responsibility lies with the client. As to insurance they pay for most birth control as it is far cheaper then the birth of a child. But I agree they do not pay for it or some things related to it as much as they should, again the alternative coat them far more.

His rights are not at issue when he treats his patients.


His rights to be the kind of DR he wishes and run his business they way he wishes is his right and needs to be defended as all rights do.

If he/she is forcing woman to do as he says or believes as to birth control than something need be done. But none can force you to stay there and just believe what he believes. Walk out and seek what you desire.

The patients rights are the higher priority.

VERY true and we agree completely and I fully support the rights of woman who believe as he does to see him. He can force no one to do anything.


Nobody forced him to become an OB/GYN.

True and no one forces woman to see him. Find a DR will fill your/their needs. He has the right to say he does not believe in birth control and you, I and everyone who believes he is wrong have the right to not employ him.


I have commented before, Christian Scientists don't go to medical school and could not be admitted. This doesn't violate their rights.

I am not sure how this fits into our conversation. If anyone does not have a medical degree they should not be practicing medicine no matter what their beliefs may be.

Again we are on the same “side” but to limit the rights of someone you or I or what ever do not believe as is a danger. If the other “side” did this and looking at our government, i.e. Ashcroft etc you would be very angry as you should be and great problems arise.

The same is true if we seek to limit their rights.


Be well my friend.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Chaos


I can´t let that stand as it is.

What about doctors that don´t parade their faith about, but still fashion their medical advice after it?

For example, you have a fundie doctor advising women/girls not to use contraceptives because they´d contract HIV or develop cancer if they did. No matter if he believes that BS himself - his faith might lead him to lying to these women to "save their souls". I really wasn't trying to take a stand.. I suggested a doctor had the right to let their religion influence their practice.. I didn't say it was right, that they should..

As has been mentioned, a good Catholic doctor should probably find a good Catholic hospital in which to practice..

No doctor has a right to be deceitful about anything..

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Cleopatra.

The reason why I didn't pose this question is because I take for granted that doctors should not try to impose their beliefs, however what made me wondered was whether they have the right to let their beliefs blur their judgement.

Do they have the right to let it blur their judgement, they have the right to believe as they wish and if they harm someone or do wrong they need be removed.

They can force no one to see them.


This is another issue. Of course I try to choose my doctor but am I in the position of doing so? I mean, what do I know of Medicine?

Not the actual issue we are not talking about one Dr saying you need an operation and another saying no but take these meds etc. We are talking about a Dr saying “ Don’t take birth control it is wrong”. You have the knowledge base to know you do not agree.

Or if you have great pain in your kidneys and a DR says pray to God 6 times a day I am sure you know to walk away, FAST.

Well Glory asked a question I am interested in hearing the answer.

What if the Catholic Hospital is the only option you have?

1- If it is the birth control subject go to Planned parent hood or another DR.
2- If it is an other health issue if they say they will pray it away, do what you can to get to another hospital or make out a good will..lol But NO hospital NONE will tell you they will pray it away.

The issue is birth control and you do not get that at a hospital anyway. Go to a DR that fits your needs.


may you and all beings be well and happy.

[Suezoled]

Could some decisions to not educate patients also be influenced with the idea that to give information would allow the doctor to be sued later on if the patient took the (true) alternative to birthcontrol (or whatever), had nasty complications, came to regret their decision, and then made an attempt to pin the guilt on the doctor?

Maybe I should read that other thread...

[Prospero]

Simply put, I believe a doctor is entirely responsible for how he/she chooses to employ his/her knowledge. Put another way, I believe anything a doctor does is subject to his own conscience. If a doctor's conscience is largely dictated by his religion, then he may act according to what he believes is right.

I say this with the belief that there are enough doctors with enough varying beliefs that there will always be a doctor comfortable with performing a procedure for a patient. I think the abortion issue is a prime example. If a doctor is comfortable with performing abortions, as opposed to allowing young women receieve less than safe back-alley abortions, then I say it is his right to do what he believes is best. The doctor that does have a problem taking a fetus' life, however, should not be forced to. I suppose euthanasia can be debated in much the same light. I personally see euthanasia as perfectly acceptable, as do many doctors who day in and day out watch the continual degradation and suffering of their patients. Again, there are many who would feel themselves incapable of even assisting in the termination of a life.

I don't see anyone's rights being violated or anyone being harmed by allowing the individual doctors' conscience to be what dictates the lengths to which they'll perform procedures. My only demand is that medical care that has proven safe and/or beneficial to the patient be allowed to be practiced. I happen to hold pro-choice and pro-euthenasia views, but I do not feel inclined to dictate my views on others. In my mind, allowing a doctor to practice medicine as he chooses is no different than allowing him to practice his religion as he chooses. To deny him that right is to deny something fundamental about his nature both as a human in regards to religion and as a healthcare provider.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I really wasn't trying to take a stand.. I suggested a doctor had the right to let their religion influence their practice.. I didn't say it was right, that they should..

As has been mentioned, a good Catholic doctor should probably find a good Catholic hospital in which to practice..

No doctor has a right to be deceitful about anything..

My point is: from his point of view, the fundie doctor is not being deceitful. He´s doing great work saving someone´s soul, and screw science.

A doctor´s duty is to use medical science, and only science, to treat his patients. If he wants to help their soul, let him become a priest.

[ceo_esq]

Since we've transplanted this particular discussion from the other thread, I thought I'd reply here to Glory's last post there.
Originally posted by Glory
Try being pregnant and then decide if there is a medical reason for birth control. Try giving birth and nursing and bleeding and seeing to the health of your baby and then decide. Try iundergoing surgery to ensure that you and the baby survive the birth. Try giving birth to child who will not live to see his seventh birthday because he inherited a genetic defect and explain how this is not a medical issue.I specifically was not addressing cases where a physician diagnoses before pregnancy a medical condition in the patient (genetic or otherwise) that would pose unusual risks for mother or child. We're talking about hypothetical cases where the doctor who is considering whether to prescribe birth control has no medical reason to suspect that conception, pregnancy and birth would occur other than normally with respect to the health of both mother and child.

Nothing I've said is inconsistent with believing that people should, in principle, have a choice about becoming or remaining pregnant. However, I'm sticking to my original proposition that medical issues are, by definition, issues that relate to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease and bodily damage, and that the decision of a doctor to decline to prescribe non-therapeutic birth control is - while possibly susceptible to other criticisms - not medically irresponsible.
Originally posted by Glory
Because doctors can prevent pregnancy the ball is in their court. If auto mechanics could prevent pregnancy the issue would be of special concern to them.Not everything that a professional expert - whether a doctor, lawyer, engineer, soldier or otherwise - can do is necessarily something that the responsibilities of his or her profession require. Physicians and surgeons can do many things and produce many effects in the body, but if those things do not directly relate (as I suggested) to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of bodily disorders and diseases, it seems to me that a doctor is perfectly entitled to say "As a doctor, I am not in the business of doing such things, even though my training and expertise technically enable me to do them, and even though I might be legally and even ethically permitted to do them."
Originally posted by Glory
The medical profession predates birth control. That is part of the problem. The practice of medicine has changed dramatically over the years and each of those changes has brought controversy along with it. There will allways be doctors who are afraid of some of these changes. They are fallible humans who cannot always come to complete agreement over every issue.As an initial matter, I'm not really sure that the medical profession significantly predates birth control. Birth control of one sort or another certainly existed in the time of Hippocrates. I think that the medical profession has had to deal with pregnancy-related issues for a very long time, as indeed the reference to abortion in the Hippocratic Oath attests.

But in any event, I'm not entirely certain of your point here. Medicine has evolved considerably over time, but it has always preserved its fundamental preoccupation with diagnosing, healing and preventing ailments. Likewise, medical knowledge about pregnancy has been transformed, but not to the point where medicine considers pregnancy itself an ailment (indeed, it would logically have been more likely to considered so in Hippocrates' day, given the associated risks). What are the specific changes to which you are referring?
Originally posted by Glory
If this the case than why do we need a doctor to presribe them and insert them? The medically indicated therapy is pregnancy prevention. Why do you need anything else?I suppose that in some sense pregnancy is a medical condition, and certainly one that merits medical attention in order to prevent disease or injury resulting therefrom. However, it appears to me that in order to characterize the decision to prevent future healthy pregnancies in otherwise healthy patients as a medical issue, the standard definition of the word "medicine" would require us also to characterize an unwanted but otherwise ordinary pregnancy per se as a physical disorder, disease or injury. It is not, in my view, and I would be surprised to learn of any medical texts that described pregnancy in such terms.

Accordingly (and I speak subject to correction by ThirdTwin or another medical expert), there is a strong case for saying that the term "medically indicated therapy" does not apply to prescribing birth control pills to a fully healthy patient for purely contraceptive purposes. It simply is not therapeutic in those circumstances.

As for why we need a doctor to prescribe birth control pills or insert an IUD, that should be obvious. Once the doctor has chosen to intervene, his very intervention (surgery or the introduction of powerful chemicals into a patient's body) cannot morally or lawfully be done except under medical supervision, because the intervention itself carries medical implications. That is the point at which it really becomes a medical issue. The decision itself does not fit the notion of a medical decision in my view, however - except possibly in a highly subsidiary way.

Without meaning to confer the same status as pregnancy on breast enhancement, consider nonetheless the latter situation. Receiving breast implants is something that most people agree should be an option for those who want it. It obviously carries medical implications and requires the expertise of doctors. Yet when done for purely cosmetic purposes on a normally constituted person, the decision to seek the procedure is not really a medical decision and the doctor who performs it is, arguably, not really practicing medicine (except in a legal sense). This analogy is limited; you needn't point out to me the medical distinctions between mammoplasty and fertility regulation. I mention it simply to show that not everything that may have medical repercussions down the line or that involves a doctor's intervention is, at its origin, a medical matter as you suggest.
Originally posted by Glory
Define general well being? Most women would not consider an unwanted fetus in their uterous a state of well being.I agree. However, this was my point there: there's a lot more to general individual well-being than medical health, but that doesn't extend the core responsibilities of the medical profession from the latter to the former.

[Glory]

Ceo-esq,

I don't have the time or energy to answer you point by point. Suffice to say that it is doctors who invented contraception, doctors who prescribe contraception, doctors who determine the safety of contraception, doctors who make breakthroughs in the field of cointraception and doctors who study the effects of contraception. It is their responsibility because they have made it their responsibility and made sure it continues to be only their privelidge to administer it.

Control over their own bodies is a fundamental right of women. We happen to require the help of a doctor to exercise that right just as we may need the help of a doctor to exercise our right to life. Call it medicine, call it therapy, call it Susan. I don't care what it's called, it can only be gotten through doctors and doctors have no right to withhold it from their patients anymore than they have the right to withhold antibiotics from someone with a bacterial infection. If they don't want that responsibility, they should not take it on.

You suppose that pregnancy is "in some sense a medical condition"? If it isn't a medical condition in all senses, than what is it? It isn't a mental condition. It isn't an emotional condition. It is physical condition that requires the care of a physician. Can you name a physician who is not an MD?

Glory

[Ossai]

Pahansiri
I do not agree he should find another specialty, no one will be forced to go to him
That would depend upon the area and the patients insurance. So not everyone would actually have another option.

and there will be many who believe as he does and they have the tight to see and have him and he has the right to do as he does as long as he is not harming anyone. If the patient does not want certain options discussed then that is their right, however the doctor should be required to at least offer those options otherwise they are deliberately withholding information from the patient that could drastically affect the patient's health.

If he will not tell her of other practitioners it is still her responsibility to go looking. She made the decision to seek it out and I do not believe that she will be so easily deterred because he may say he does not believe in it. It looks good on paper but breaks down in practice. I grew-up in Tennessee with quiet a few families that had no choice about who their primary medical provider was. If the Dr. didn't prescribe birth control then they couldn’t get it.


Cleopatra
Without questioning anybody's sincerity here I still find hard to believe that there are medical institutions in USA that withhold information from their patients based on religious beliefs. Sadly enough I work about two mile from a hospital that does just that.

Glory
I agree.

Ossai

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Ossai.



That would depend upon the area and the patients insurance. So not everyone would actually have another option

There are always options.
1. If the only Dr you can see tells you that he does not believe in contraception then call the insurance and then the state medical board.
2. Find the funds to see another DR for the contraception.
3. Buy sponges or condoms etc until the changes as to contacting the insurance and then the state medical board occur.


If the patient does not want certain options discussed then that is their right, however the doctor should be required to at least offer those options otherwise they are deliberately withholding information from the patient that could drastically affect the patient's health.


I agree. Can they be forced I am not sure but the thing to do is push him ask him force him to either say he does not believe in it or he will not give it etc if that is the case leave or seek action.

My points are you will not change the beliefs of the DR if he firmly believes as he does he has that right. As you have the right to leave or do what you must.


If he is proven to be deliberately withholding information then turn him in but that is not really the point here it is a DR or hospital that says they will not prescribe birth control, their cards are on the table. Do I agree with them, not at all, do I defend their rights, yes.


It looks good on paper but breaks down in practice. I grew-up in Tennessee with quiet a few families that had no choice about who their primary medical provider was. If the Dr. didn't prescribe birth control then they couldn’t get it.

I agree to a point but there are always proactive things to do. Drive someplace else, get condoms, sponges etc, I know there are many things such as poverty that effect this and as with all things very few things are black and white.

[Glory]

Pahansiri,

I fear you are assuming some things. You are assuming that the women/girls in question know what they need to know about birth control. You are assuming that there is no conflict between the women/ girls and their families over this issue. You are assuming that we all know what questions to ask and that we all have the guts to stand up to a doctor. I am sorry to say that that is not the case. We don't all know everything we need to know. We are dependant on doctors, the experts, to tell us what we should know and to help us determine what the best course of action is. Many of us cannot discuss contraception with family because our families may not agree with us on how we wish to live. Also, unless a family member is a physician, they can only offer lay oppinions. We need reliable, accurate, complete information from a professional to make an intelligent choice. Some of us are young and inexperienced. We do not know all of our rights and privelidges during a visit to the doctor and many of us are intimidated by those we have been taught to regard as authority figures. You stack the deck against us and then say it our fault when we fail to live up to your expectations. Also, you put an extra financial and logistical burden on those of us who happen to live in small towns and rural areas. Why should we have to deal with that simply because of someone else's religious beliefs.

I mentioned Christian Scientists and Jehova's Witnesses before. I did so because both of these religions prohibit practices which are integral to the practice of medicine. I doubt that a surgeon who refused to give a patient blood because it was against his, (the doctors) religion could claim that his being forced to transfuse a patient was a violation of his rights. A christian scientist could not refuse patients medicine on the basis of his beliefs and still call himself a physician. Why the special dispensation for catholic doctors who don't want to fulfill all of their responsibilities?

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I agree to a point but there are always proactive things to do. Drive someplace else, get condoms, sponges etc, I know there are many things such as poverty that effect this and as with all things very few things are black and white.

Sponges are no longer available here. OTC contraception for females is not nearly as reliable as the pill or an IUD or depo provera shots. Condoms require the cooperation of a person who stands no chance of getting pregnant. Women need to be in control of their own bodies. They need birth control that works and that they can control by themselves.

Some things are black and white. Women have the right to control our bodies. Anyone who seeks to interfere with that control for any reason has no right, what so ever, to do so. Doctors are in a special position. One which requires a certain amount of public trust. They have a responsibilty to society to preserve our health and well being. It is a responsibility that they accepted willingly. They must live up to it. Access to reliable birth control is vital to the well being of women.

Glory

[Pahansiri]

Women need to be in control of their own bodies. They need birth control that works and that they can control by themselves.

Some things are black and white. Women have the right to control our bodies. .

100% true and part of that control is if you go to a DR that says he does not believe in birth control and will not prescribe it a woman being in full control walks out and seeks a DR who will address her needs not his. That has been my point throughout my friend.

You have to be in control of your body and have full freedom as to your belief of birth control etc but so does that DR. Freedom, true freedom does not mean I am free to believe as you wish me too.

You and all woman if they choose need only walk away from such a DR, ones who believe what he believes will stay. This is a free market system and we all have freedoms and must support that or freedom for all or most will fade and there will only be freedom for the few.


Anyone who seeks to interfere with that control for any reason has no right, what so ever, to do so.

A DR that tells you he does not believe in birth control and will not prescribe it can NOT control you unless YOU allow it by staying.


Doctors are in a special position. One which requires a certain amount of public trust. They have a responsibilty to society to preserve our health and well being. It is a responsibility that they accepted willingly. They must live up to it. Access to reliable birth control is vital to the well being of women.

Exactly and Exactly what I have been saying.

BUT no DR can force you not to take birth control, NONE unless YOU allow it.

If Doctor A tells you in clear terms he does not believe in birth control, then go to Doctor B who does.


Be well my friend we are going in circles.

[Glory]

Walking out on a doctor who says "no, I will not prescribe contraception." is easy.

Can you not understand the difference between refusing to do something and withholding information? Do you not understand the result of someone's withholding information?

If you have a medical problem, do you know everything the doctor may be able to do for you? Every possible treatment and medication that may be of help? I hope so because, to your way of thinking, the doctor is under no obligation to tell you about all your options.

Withholding information interferes with our control over ourselves. It makes it impossible to make choices that the doctor doesn't want us to make.

I'll say it again. The problem is the withholding of information. The problem is the withholding of information. The problem is the withholding of information.

How can a woman know what to ask for when the doctor doesn't tell her what her options are? Do you think we are born knowing about the pill or about depo provera or IUD's or Norplant? The only way to get the information is from a doctor. If doctors aren't talking then we don't even know what they aren't telling us about. They are withholding information. Do you see the pattern here?

If a woman goes to her doctor because her periods are irregular and painful does she not deserve treatment? The treatment may be birth control pills. Oh wait, the doctor disapproves of brith control pills because his priest told they are against God. He sends her on her way without once mentrioning the pill as a possible treatment. She is left not knowing that she may get help, in the form of birth control pills, from another doctor because her doctor has never discussed the pill with her. He withheld information.

Glory

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
If they don't want that responsibility, they should not take it on.I daresay most physicians who do not want that responsibility don't take it on, which is exactly the behavior you are criticizing. My point is that they do not take it on by sole virtue of becoming physicians or even gynecological or obstetric specialists.

ThirdTwin, any thoughts?
Originally posted by Glory
You suppose that pregnancy is "in some sense a medical condition"? If it isn't a medical condition in all senses, than what is it? It isn't a mental condition. It isn't an emotional condition. It is physical condition that requires the care of a physician.It is a medical condition precisely to the extent that you've identified - i.e. a physical state (although by your definition, "health" is also a medical condition). Pregnancy is not, by itself, a "medical condition" in what I hope you would agree is the more commonly understood sense of a disorder, disease, injury or abnormality.
Originally posted by Glory
Can you name a physician who is not an MD?Osteopathic physicians are not MDs. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, though.
Originally posted by Glory
If you have a medical problem, do you know everything the doctor may be able to do for you? Every possible treatment and medication that may be of help? I hope so because, to your way of thinking, the doctor is under no obligation to tell you about all your options.Again, you are characterizing a possibility of pregnancy under normal circumstances as a medical disorder, and it throws your entire analysis of this point off.

By the way, when you go to a doctor with physical symptoms of an actual medical problem, which is closer to what you expect to hear?:

1. "Looks like such-and-such; there's a lot of that going around. I'll give you a prescription for Drug X that should clear it up."

2. "Well, I was going to prescribe Drug X, but there are these other ten antibiotics in the manual that are also sometimes used, as well as several alternative therapies. And sometimes it goes away on its own. What'll it be?"
Originally posted by Glory
Do you think we are born knowing about the pill or about depo provera or IUD's or Norplant? The only way to get the information is from a doctor.For what it's worth, you are clearly exaggerating the role of individual physicians here for rhetorical effect. Like you, I wasn't born knowing about the pill, Depo-Provera, IUDs or Norplant. I know about them now, despite never having had a physician tip me off. If the only way to know enough to ask is to be told by your doctor in the first place, someone should advise the manufacturer of Ortho Tri-Cyclen that the $47 million it spent on direct-to-consumer promotion of the drug in 2000 alone was wasted. Also, let the FDA know that the exemption to DTC advertising restrictions it grants for contraceptive treatments serves no purpose.
Originally posted by Glory
If a woman goes to her doctor because her periods are irregular and painful does she not deserve treatment? The treatment may be birth control pills. Oh wait, the doctor disapproves of brith control pills because his priest told they are against God. He sends her on her way without once mentrioning the pill as a possible treatment.Dramatic, but unrealistic. You are implying both that such a doctor would turn away a patient without rendering any treatment whatsoever and that oral contraceptives are the only treatment for dysmenorrhea, each of which is highly implausible. (For one thing, the pill is rarely prescribed for dysmenorrhea unless the patient also wants to use it as birth control, because the side effects and risks are substantial.)

But more importantly, as I mentioned earlier, I am fairly certain - despite frequent charges to the contrary - that doctors at most Catholic hospitals will prescribe oral contraceptives for "off-label" uses (as hormone therapy) if no better medical treatment is available. This seems prima facie consistent with the Catholic healthcare directives I linked earlier, and it is also consistent with the fact that at least some Catholic dioceses offer health insurance plans that reimburse for birth control pills where prescribed as treatment for an actual medical disorder.

Don't get me wrong. I would prefer a doctor who would freely discuss and prescribe any safe form of birth control even if I were in perfect health. I simply don't think that his or her responsibilities as a healer require it. Further, my right to be spoon-fed information not relating to diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diseases/disorders hardly trumps my doctor's entitlement not to get involved in prescribing medicine for nontherapeutic reasons.

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I daresay most physicians who do not want that responsibility don't take it on, which is exactly the behavior you are criticizing. My point is that they do not take it on by sole virtue of becoming physicians or even gynecological or obstetric specialists.

Yes they do. just as they take on the rest of the resonsibilities associated with caring for their patients. What makes contraception any less their business than fertility?

ThirdTwin, any thoughts?
It is a medical condition precisely to the extent that you've identified - i.e. a physical state (although by your definition, "health" is also a medical condition). Pregnancy is not, by itself, a "medical condition" in what I hope you would agree is the more commonly understood sense of a disorder, disease, injury or abnormality.

Clearly, if you are intent on refusing to acknowledge pregnancy as a medical condition there is nothing I can do to change that. Why then, do you suppose, medicaL doctors take such an interest in it? Why are obstetricians medical doctors?

Osteopathic physicians are not MDs. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, though.

Ob/Gyn's are medical doctors. You insist that medical doctors are not obligated to do anything that is not directly related to a medical problem and yet it is medical doctors that care for pregnant patients. It is medical doctors who prescribe contraception and it is medical doctors doing research in the field. You may think that it isn't their responsibility but they seem to disagree.

Again, you are characterizing a possibility of pregnancy under normal circumstances as a medical disorder, and it throws your entire analysis of this point off.

I am doing no such thing. I am illustrating that when anyone, prgenant or not, walks into a doctor's office they rarely know what they need or what the possibilities are. It is unrealistic and unfair to restrict birth control to women who have specifically gone searching for it . It is also unfair to expect women to know all the forms of contrception available and to kjnow which one is best for them so that they may ask for it specifically. As I have said more than once, I did not ask my doctor about IUD's, or any kind of birth control for that matter. I was pregnant. Had she not reccomended a form of birth control for which she had determined I was a good condidate I would not have ever thought of it. I benefitted from her expertise and knowledge, expertise and knowledge being the primary reason that anyone sees a any kind of physician.

By the way, when you go to a doctor with physical symptoms of an actual medical problem, which is closer to what you expect to hear?:

1. "Looks like such-and-such; there's a lot of that going around. I'll give you a prescription for Drug X that should clear it up."

2. "Well, I was going to prescribe Drug X, but there are these other ten antibiotics in the manual that are also sometimes used, as well as several alternative therapies. And sometimes it goes away on its own. What'll it be?"

I can infer from this that you have never had a bad drug reaction. I would expect the doctor to tell me the types of meds available and explain the effects of each type. I would expect that he would ask me about details of my health that would impact the effects of the different types of drugs. I would expect him to ascertain wether or not I have any allergies and wether or not I am taking anything else. I would expect him to help me make an informed decision and to allow me to help him make one.

Bear in mind, I am 35 years old and have been to a few doctors and read a few books and aryicles about the process of being seen. I didn't know at the age of 16 what I know now. Making assumtions about what other patients know is dangerous.

For what it's worth, you are clearly exaggerating the role of individual physicians here for rhetorical effect. Like you, I wasn't born knowing about the pill, Depo-Provera, IUDs or Norplant. I know about them now, despite never having had a physician tip me off. If the only way to know enough to ask is to be told by your doctor in the first place, someone should advise the manufacturer of Ortho Tri-Cyclen that the $47 million it spent on direct-to-consumer promotion of the drug in 2000 alone was wasted. Also, let the FDA know that the exemption to DTC advertising restrictions it grants for contraceptive treatments serves no purpose.

More assumtions about what individuals should know. Making assumtions like that makes sure that myths like "you can't get pregnant your first time" endure. You have know idea about the experiences of the vast majority of individuals. If an article is seen by a billion people that in no way means that it has been seen by one billion and one. This is an issue that affects individuals and each one must be dealt with seperately.

Dramatic, but unrealistic. You are implying both that such a doctor would turn away a patient without rendering any treatment whatsoever and that oral contraceptives are the only treatment for dysmenorrhea, each of which is highly implausible. (For one thing, the pill is rarely prescribed for dysmenorrhea unless the patient also wants to use it as birth control, because the side effects and risks are substantial.)

Says you. It did happen, and it does happen. I don't care if this particular type of incident never happens again. The fact that it happened once is appalling and illustrates the fact, not the possibility but the fact, that doctors have been guilty of ignoring the needs of women and manipulating situations in such a way as to ensure that we do not have the control to which we are entitled. It is unacceptable and intolerable for it or anything like it to ever happen.

But more importantly, as I mentioned earlier, I am fairly certain - despite frequent charges to the contrary - that doctors at most Catholic hospitals will prescribe oral contraceptives for "off-label" uses (as hormone therapy) if no better medical treatment is available. This seems prima facie consistent with the Catholic healthcare directives I linked earlier, and it is also consistent with the fact that at least some Catholic dioceses offer health insurance plans that reimburse for birth control pills where prescribed as treatment for an actual medical disorder.

So, it's okay to violate women's rights just a little? It's only every once in while and it's usually just their right to information about contraception that is withheld and she can always go elsewhere. Lets apply that standard to other civil liberties. Black people are only refused service in few restaurants and the owners have a right to refuse service to any one. They can always go elsewhere.

You are fairly certain or you are sure? I am fairly certain that there are hospitals that will not prescribe anything that functions as birth control for any reason. That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Again, it's only one basic right that they are violating so that's not so bad.

Don't get me wrong. I would prefer a doctor who would freely discuss and prescribe any safe form of birth control even if I were in perfect health. I simply don't think that his or her responsibilities as a healer require it. Further, my right to be spoon-fed information not relating to diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diseases/disorders hardly trumps my doctor's entitlement not to get involved in prescribing medicine for nontherapeutic reasons.

His responsibility as one who cares for his patients, healthy or ill, requires it.

I have tried very hard, over the years, to remain inclusive of men in this issue. It is getting increasingly more difficult to do so as I get older and gain more experience with men who trivialize the importance of birth control. They do so by tolerating those who stand between women and access to it. They do so by placing the burden of knowledge on the shoulders of young teens about whom they know nothing. They do so by tolerating inconveniences placed in the path of women living in rural areas. If one black person's rights are violated there is public outrage. Why are women not equally protected?

Glory

[Pahansiri]

Greetings my friend Glory.


Now take a deep breath and relax. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/rub.gif

The very first post of mine you replied to “Do you patronize "Christian" establishments?” you reacted with emotion after not really fully reading the post I pointed that out to you and you apologized.

Here again you, I believe are reading into post, not just mine but it seems anyone who post on this topic you clearly are close to. Perhaps too close as you are not seeing clearly and are driven by emotion.

As I have said in all my post we agree as to the main position but disagree as to the freedom or the DR and the responsibility of the client.

Let us remember before I do respond to your post that the base of the evolution of this topic was your statement:

I wouldn't go any where near a Catholic hospital if I was pregnant, an area of medicine in which Catholics are notorious for putting their religious beliefs before their medical obligations.

I did not and believe no one did challenge this at the time and moved instead to talking about their( many not all) views on birth control.

Please all me to address your statement with some points and questions.

1- What are the parameters of your definition of notorious as to this/ 100% of Catholic hospital,? 50%, 10% a few or 1 ?
2- What evidence do you have that this statement is true? Do you have cases and if so, because I am sure there may be some does the amount you have if any rise to being able to say Catholics are notorious for putting their religious beliefs before their medical obligations.
3- How many Catholics? I know many many, who do not. My family and wife’s family are mainly Catholics and most use or have used birth control.

It is always a danger to say “this group is this or that” you can not know the beliefs of all the people in any belief or group.

Do you have any evidence to prove most Catholics are notorious for putting their religious beliefs before their medical obligations. ?

Please give examples of real cases and you would need to demonstrate that most do this all the time.

Do things like such happen I am pretty sure they do but if a DR did what you keep saying as in denying a client birth control that would stop her flow he would be easy target to be sued.

Laws protect clients from such.

But I will again say;

1- If a DR says he will not prescribe anything because of his beliefs it is 100% your responsibility to leave.
2- If you believe he is holding back information then push him on it if he refuses, leave.

I am sure you believe in getting a 2nd opinion.

Walking out on a doctor who says "no, I will not prescribe contraception." is easy.

yes it is.

Can you not understand the difference between refusing to do something and withholding information? Do you not understand the result of someone's withholding information?

Your anger is getting the best of you.

I understand many things. If as I have pointed out you go to a DR for birth control and he tells you he does not believe in just LEAVE and find a DR that will help you, go to planned parenthood

If as I have pointed out you go to a DR for birth control or for a condition that requires say the pill for bleeding and you feel he is not answering you go someplace else. Call your insurance provider call the medical board.

Will there be cases where someone has no other choice I am sure there are but few, but he is still liable and needs be gone after if his actions harm someone.

You can not tell someone what to believe or make them believe as you wish them too just as you do not want say Christians forcing their beliefs on you.

May I ask if you were a DR and a very Christian woman came in and you told her is she did not abort a child she would die but the child would live. You tell her she has to abort it now and not wait the 2 months until the child could be delivered safely as the child would have a good chance at life but she may die.

You tell here she has to abort now but she says no, her beliefs say no and she was going to wait so the baby lived.

If you could over ride her wishes because you believed her decision was wrong, you could do it and nothing of legal consequence would happen to you, would you override her decision fully believing she was going to die if she did not abort now? But disregarding her beliefs.

A DR would be wrong for withholding truth or treatment, we agree as I have said over and over. Please read what is written.

If you have a medical problem, do you know everything the doctor may be able to do for you?

I get a 2nd opinion, I ask I talk. Can all do this? Sadly no but unless one is not capable you have a responsibility for your health as you have pointed out also.


Every possible treatment and medication that may be of help? I hope so because, to your way of thinking, the doctor is under no obligation to tell you about all your options.

Really? Can you show me where I said that? Please show me using my post where I said that. Your anger is getting the best of you and you are being very dishonest.


Withholding information interferes with our control over ourselves. It makes it impossible to make choices that the doctor doesn't want us to make.

True if you stand like a child and blindly follow, taking no personal responsibility.

I'll say it again. The problem is the withholding of information. The problem is the withholding of information. The problem is the withholding of information.

Yes I agree. Can you point out to me 15 cases to back your statements. Real life names and cases.

As I have said I agree as to the concept but you make only statements of belief making them as if statements of fact.

Does such things happen, yes are they right, no. But you say it is wide spread. 15 cases should be easy.

In fact do this name all catholic hospitals in the country and give me the data on 2 cases in each hospital.

How can a woman know what to ask for when the doctor doesn't tell her what her options are? Do you think we are born knowing about the pill or about depo provera or IUD's or Norplant?


Seems you do. I see adds all the time on TV, shows talking about it, planned parenthood etc, health class in most schools.

Mothers teaching their children, friends talking good DRs….

Again no one is disagreeing with you in principal you are becoming agree because others will not believe or agree with every word you say.


The only way to get the information is from a doctor.

Wrong.

If doctors aren't talking then we don't even know what they aren't telling us about. They are withholding information. Do you see the pattern here?

Deep breath.

Mostly wrong. Are you a blind and deaf child are all woman this?

How many DR’s are doing this.. Please start giving facts, what %?


If a woman goes to her doctor because her periods are irregular and painful does she not deserve treatment?

I will love to see where I said or anyone here has said she does not… May I ask for the data on how many do not get it? I assume there are but you seem to be an expert so please give the data. I believe as I have said even one is wrong but sadly there are many cases of all people, male, female etc not being given the help they need.

But, again you made statements of “fact” so please, the facts.

The treatment may be birth control pills. Oh wait, the doctor disapproves of brith control pills because his priest told they are against God. He sends her on her way without once mentrioning the pill as a possible treatment. She is left not knowing that she may get help, in the form of birth control pills, from another doctor because her doctor has never discussed the pill with her. He withheld information.

Very sad and wrong. I look forward to the cases you over, the % of DR’s doing this, the hospitals doing this and allowing it where the medical board when contacted did nothing etc.. I will be happy to discuss the cases when you give all the data.



My friend I know you are passionate about this. I am passionate about the suffering of any being but do not allow emotion to blind me.

May you be well and happy my friend.:)

[Cleopatra]

I am rather surprised at the fact that what Glory tries to demonstrate seems to find in disagreement a couple of posters.

A main argument against woo-woos who question the effectiveness of Science and they ask us how can we trust for example Medicine when we are not doctors is that it's the scientific method that we are aware of and that we trust.

Part of physicians' medical-scientific obligation is to inform people about the choices that they have.

How can we trust doctors that withhold information based on their religious beliefs.Where does such a "scientist" differ from a woo-woo?


I have mentioned in another thread that the 22% of the Greek population is illiterate.

A girl that comes to Athens from a village and she has her medical expenses covered by the Greek Church and she sees a doctor who is a devoted Christian won't have any access to information regarding contraception.

So, she can't make a choice and she becomes a citizen of a second rate.

This girl is condemned to live in the Middle Ages.

Who has the right to take such decisions on behalf of others?

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
How can we trust doctors that withhold information based on their religious beliefs.Where does such a "scientist" differ from a woo-woo?


A scientist should be guided by evidence.

A woo-woo is guided by belief.

[69dodge]

Whether pregnency is or is not a "medical condition" is immaterial. What matters is that if[list=1] no one but doctors may prescribe birth control, and doctors may choose not to prescribe birth control,[/list=1]that means that women may not be able to obtain birth control. That is not acceptable.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree


A scientist should be guided by evidence.


No doubt about that. But don't you think that doctors that withhold information based on their religious beliefs leave their Science behind?

Since we cannot have their knowledge our decisions depend on the information doctors provide to us, a doctor that withholds information deprives me of my right to choose and why not, leave his office if I disagree with his practices.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am rather surprised at the fact that what Glory tries to demonstrate seems to find in disagreement a couple of posters.

A main argument against woo-woos who question the effectiveness of Science and they ask us how can we trust for example Medicine when we are not doctors is that it's the scientific method that we are aware of and that we trust.

Part of physicians' medical-scientific obligation is to inform people about the choices that they have.

How can we trust doctors that withhold information based on their religious beliefs.Where does such a "scientist" differ from a woo-woo?


I have mentioned in another thread that the 22% of the Greek population is illiterate.

A girl that comes to Athens from a village and she has her medical expenses covered by the Greek Church and she sees a doctor who is a devoted Christian won't have any access to information regarding contraception.

So, she can't make a choice and she becomes a citizen of a second rate.

This girl is condemned to live in the Middle Ages.

Who has the right to take such decisions on behalf of others?


Cleopatra greetings.

I guess and I may be wrong but you include me in the group who you say are in disagreement with Glory tries to demonstrate.

I can not speak for others but believe you also are not really reading everyone’s post. I have not really read all others post so do not know if some are completely in disagreement with Glory. I can speak only for me.

As I have pointed out clearly in all my post I agree with the principal position. In that care and or information should not be healed back from person and a DR need be honest and keep out from his helping others what he may feel is right or wrong as to what someone does as to birth etc.

As I have said people have a responsibility also for their health and seek to gain all information. You point out or demonstrate what I have said as to few things being black and white there are conditions where as a person will have little choice as to who to see or perhaps what smoke he may be blowing up their butts if you will.

Also conditions as to the religion they may be in, family, culture etc.

My point was if we look back at my post if you walk into a say Catholic hospital and the DR says I will not prescribe birth control then in this country you go else where. I can not speak for all places as I am not in all places and know as all things are the result of causes and conditions there will be many causes and conditions around this as with all things.

My last point illustrated that we can not speak so broadly i.e. “Catholic hospitals are notorious etc” some may be but there are laws controlling this some DRs may be and they need be turned into the medical board as I said.


Again, as I have said and I believe others we all pretty much agree here as to the base statements.

This horse has been beaten enough for me and to me seems dead ( such a sad analogy) so I will move on and wish all to be well and happy..

[Cleopatra]

Although I wanted to avoid to mention this I can't help it.

The drug laws ( at least in Greece) have many "holes" that a lawyer can use in order to clear a drug-dealer.

If such a person comes to my office to ask for my legal advice I will inform him about all the options he has and I will explain to him that I do not do business like that. I will go as far as suggesting to him a couple of colleagues that do nothing but clearing drug-dealers in court.

I think that this is my duty although I strongly believe that there must be no mercy for such criminals.

[MoeFaux]

I'm shocked that a womans right to birth control is being questioned. It makes me so angry, and I've therefore not been responding to posts.
Glory, I agree with everything you said.
ceo_esq, I know you don't hate women, that was indeed a retorical quesiton.

It doesn't matter where you're from or who your doctor is, a woman should have a right to birth control and the information about it.
Ads by drug companies aren't information enough. Sex ed in schools isn't information enough. A woman needs a medical authority to ask questions of, and to prescribe it. (I'm pissed enough as it is that the Pill isn't over the counter; you have no idea how much trouble it is for me to get it without health insurance)
Women aren't born with this knowledge. Second hand informaiton is NOT adequate. A woman needs a doctor to tell her WHAT Pill is right for her, WHAT it's side effects are, WHAT it will do to her cycle, and HOW it will help her. This is the doctors job.

Are you guys going to try and question my right to vote now, too?

[Cleopatra]

Errr Pahansiri without knowing it you stepped on my toe :)

I always read the posts before replying.

You might aknowledge the fact that all people are entitled to have unrestricted access to information but in the most of the cases people do not know what to ask a doctor.

A Catholic or a Greek Orthodox doctor will never mention contraception to a patient so how is it possible for their patients to choose?

And what about if for financial or social reasons such a doctor is the only option one has? There are many poor people out there Pahansiri that cannot afford choices.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I'm shocked that a womans right to birth control is being questioned. It makes me so angry, and I've therefore not been responding to posts.


May I ask where anyone has questioned a womans right to birth control ?

Maybe I have missed where someone has said that may I ask that you post from their words/post wheer they said that?

I know I have not said such a thing and clearly said such was not right so I must assume you do not mean me..

Again I ask with respect you post who said such a thing so I may read it.

Thank you.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Errr Pahansiri without knowing it you stepped on my toe :)

I always read the posts before replying.

You might aknowledge the fact that all people are entitled to have unrestricted access to information but in the most of the cases people do not know what to ask a doctor.

A Catholic or a Greek Orthodox doctor will never mention contraception to a patient so how is it possible for their patients to choose?

And what about if for financial or social reasons such a doctor is the only option one has? There are many poor people out there Pahansiri that cannot afford choices.

Pahansiri without knowing it you stepped on my toe :)



I always read the posts before replying.

I am sorry if I did I am pretty heavy so if I did it would smart..

Allow me to post what I said.
I can not speak for others but believe you also are not really reading everyone’s post

As you see I said “ I believe” you are not “really” reading post what I should have said was “fully” or reading them with an open mind reading what is written not perhaps what you believe is written etc.

Again that was just a belief, maybe you just misread my statement and thought I said you did NOT read the post.. wink wink..

You might aknowledge the fact that all people are entitled to have unrestricted access to information but in the most of the cases people do not know what to ask a doctor.

Can you give me the date to support “most” people do not know what to ask a doctor? What % of people will constitute “most” people?

But I will agree many people either do not know, or are to shy, or will not question a DR. But “most” I would need proof to belief that.

But just like I have been with Glory and the base of her beliefs I agree with your position and statement less the over statement.


Your statement supports what I have been saying as to people have the responsibility to learn and question.

The fact is I believe when a large majority of woman go to a DR for birth control they have at least a working idea of some of the options, if the DR says “ No I will not prescribe it because I don’t believe God likes it” . If the woman stays or just says “OK” SHE is wrong and more so then him. He was “honest” to stay is silly..

She went there knowing what she wanted so if he will not give it, leave.


A Catholic or a Greek Orthodox doctor will never mention contraception to a patient so how is it possible for their patients to choose?

Again a VERY large overstatement that is wrong. Perhaps a Greek Orthodox may not but I do not know all Greek Orthodox DR, do you? Can you know what each will and will not do?

I can tell you many Catholic DR do in this country and I would believe in many others. Will some not, Yes. To say “all or none” is silly.

Unless you can post the name of every Catholic or a Greek Orthodox Dr and proof they will NEVER mention contraception to a patient.



And what about if for financial or social reasons such a doctor is the only option one has? There are many poor people out there Pahansiri that cannot afford choices. [

And you said I always read the posts before replying. ??? Really?

Please re-read all my post, allow me to post just from my last one.

Pahansiri wrote : As I have said people have a responsibility also for their health and seek to gain all information. You point out or demonstrate what I have said as to few things being black and white there are conditions where as a person will have little choice as to who to see or perhaps what smoke he may be blowing up their butts if you will.

Also conditions as to the religion they may be in, family, culture etc.

My point was if we look back at my post if you walk into a say Catholic hospital and the DR says I will not prescribe birth control then in this country you go else where. I can not speak for all places as I am not in all places and know as all things are the result of causes and conditions there will be many causes and conditions around this as with all things.


see I did not step on your toe perhaps it is just a hang nail

Be well my friend.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings my friend Glory.

To begin with, you are quite correct in your assertion that I have gotten too emotional over this argument. I assure you that I have read your posts and I think I fully understand your position. That is what I find so vexing. You are in favour of free access to birth control and yet are willing to tolerate obstacles placed on the path to to it. Such obstacles are real and their effects are profound on those who encounter them. You and Ceo-esq have made several statements which indicate that you do not think it is a problem which warrants remedy. That those who stand between women and reproductive freedom are simply exercising their rights. That is not the case. They are depriving women of their rights and if you tolerate that you are left with two possible standpoints. Either you are fine with women being less free than men because they bear children or you are fine with individual's being deprived of their rights and, therefore, you will tolerate someone depriving you of yours. I have been accused of being melodramatic. You are entitled to that oppinion but I can assure that women do not find the idea of being discriminated against a minor matter. A little discrimination, in the form of having to drive into the next county in order to exercise their rights for instance, goes a long way.

You may ask why I aim my attack at doctors. The reason is that they are the individuals with power in this instance. Theirs is a power unique to their position and describing it as a medical or a nonmedical issue doesn't change that fact. Only doctors can prescribe and thus they have power. If they choose to waive that power, so be it. When they choose to use that power to control women they have stepped over the line into the territory of abuse of power and that must not be tolerated.

As I have said in all my post we agree as to the main position but disagree as to the freedom or the DR and the responsibility of the client.

Yes we do. I have made every effort to explain to you the effects of some doctor's behaviour but you refuse to acknowledge the reality of some women's lives and ways in which we are discriminated against.

Let us remember before I do respond to your post that the base of the evolution of this topic was your statement:

I wouldn't go any where near a Catholic hospital if I was pregnant, an area of medicine in which Catholics are notorious for putting their religious beliefs before their medical obligations.

I did not and believe no one did challenge this at the time and moved instead to talking about their( many not all) views on birth control.

Yes, we did change topics.

Please all me to address your statement with some points and questions.

1- What are the parameters of your definition of notorious as to this/ 100% of Catholic hospital,? 50%, 10% a few or 1 ?
2- What evidence do you have that this statement is true? Do you have cases and if so, because I am sure there may be some does the amount you have if any rise to being able to say Catholics are notorious for putting their religious beliefs before their medical obligations.
3- How many Catholics? I know many many, who do not. My family and wife’s family are mainly Catholics and most use or have used birth control.

It is always a danger to say “this group is this or that” you can not know the beliefs of all the people in any belief or group.

The practices of individual catholics is not at issue. What is at issue is the practices of individual doctors. The evidence I have is the edict handed down very publicly by the Pope. Birth Control is a sin according to the supreme authority of the Catholic Church. As Catholic Hospitals are under the auspices of the that very authority I have every reason to believe that Catholic hospitals will refuse to provide abortions, birth control and information about either. The same goes for Catholic doctors. I am fully aware that there are more than a few liberal Catholics out there who practice birth control and prescribe it. Good for them. This does not, in any way reflect on those who do not. If the vast majority of Catholic Doctors out there are pro choice that's fabulous and irrelevant. Right now it is legal for doctors to choose to withhold information on birth control and to refuse to prescribe it to those who want and need it. Right now there are doctors doing exactly that. That is the problem with which I am concerned. One million Catholics using birth control has no bearing whatso ever on that fact.

Do things like such happen I am pretty sure they do but if a DR did what you keep saying as in denying a client birth control that would stop her flow he would be easy target to be sued.

Have you ever tried to sue a doctor? I know that in this litigious society we all think it a simple matter of filing and buying a new suit for court. It ain't that simple. The fact is that being able to sue someone doesn't constitute a remedy to the problem at hand. That being that women are being robbed of choice.

Laws protect clients from such.

You'd be surprised. The law is supposed to protect us from malpractice. The law has not recognised that refusal to prescribe birth control constitutes malpractice. Further more, proving malpractice means convincing other doctors that one of their own screwed up in such a way as to be guilty of negligence. It costs money to sue and pay for expert testimony which few of us have and finally a juror who bleieves that birth control is a sin is all it takes for the whole thing to end up with a judgement or verdict for the defendant. That is not a practical remedy.

But I will again say;

1- If a DR says he will not prescribe anything because of his beliefs it is 100% your responsibility to leave.
2- If you believe he is holding back information then push him on it if he refuses, leave.

Assumes knowledge not in evidence. The problem is what the patient doesn't know and the fact that a woman has been discriminated against by having to spend more time money and resources to get to another doctor. Unacceptable.

I am sure you believe in getting a 2nd opinion.

Irrelevant. We are not talking about me specifically and theonly reason one would need a second oppinion is because the doctor refuse to give the patient the care to which she is entitled. That is discrimination.

Can you not understand the difference between refusing to do something and withholding information? Do you not understand the result of someone's withholding information?

Your anger is getting the best of you.

Answer the question.

I understand many things. If as I have pointed out you go to a DR for birth control and he tells you he does not believe in just LEAVE and find a DR that will help you, go to planned parenthood

If as I have pointed out you go to a DR for birth control or for a condition that requires say the pill for bleeding and you feel he is not answering you go someplace else. Call your insurance provider call the medical board.

Your words indicate that you do not understand the difference and do not have any knowledge or understanding of the reality the situation. There is no reason that women should ever have to go through this. We shouldn't have to switch doctors. We shouldn't have to make complaints or call our insurance providers. The medical board will do exactly what? There is no law against this discrimination. That is the problem.

Will there be cases where someone has no other choice I am sure there are but few, but he is still liable and needs be gone after if his actions harm someone.

This statement is naive. Harm them or force them to endure pregnancy, birth and everything part and parcel to it? You would allow an innocent woman to come to harm rather than require a doctor to leave his religion at the door of his office?

You can not tell someone what to believe or make them believe as you wish them too just as you do not want say Christians forcing their beliefs on you.[/b]

No I can't but I can sure as heck fight to protect the rights of women.

May I ask if you were a DR and a very Christian woman came in and you told her is she did not abort a child she would die but the child would live. You tell her she has to abort it now and not wait the 2 months until the child could be delivered safely as the child would have a good chance at life but she may die.

You tell here she has to abort now but she says no, her beliefs say no and she was going to wait so the baby lived.

If you could over ride her wishes because you believed her decision was wrong, you could do it and nothing of legal consequence would happen to you, would you override her decision fully believing she was going to die if she did not abort now? But disregarding her beliefs.

A DR would be wrong for withholding truth or treatment, we agree as I have said over and over. Please read what is written.

Abortion is an invasive procedure which cannot be performed without the patient"s consent. As the woman you describe is almost 32 weeks along, an abortion is not an option any way. Birth by cesarian would be the best option that I know of. Cesarian is, of course, also a very invasive procedure which cannot be performed without the patient's concent. In the event that the woman were not conscious and, thus, could not speak for herself I would perform the procedure unless she had already had the opportunity to inform me of her wishes. Your assertion that nothing legal would happen, I must inform you, is seriously mistaken. Operating on a patient against their wishes is about as big a no no as one can make short of killing a patient.

This is all entirely irrelevant, of course. I wouldn't violate a patient's rights and neither should any one else.



I get a 2nd opinion, I ask I talk. Can all do this? Sadly no but unless one is not capable you have a responsibility for your health as you have pointed out also.

Of course. This does not make it okay for doctors to violate a woman's rights any more than a black man's ability to go to another restaurant makes it okay to violate his rights.

[Really? Can you show me where I said that? Please show me using my post where I said that. Your anger is getting the best of you and you are being very dishonest.

You imply it when you place the responsibility of asking about birth control entirely on the woman and when you fail to acknowledge that when doctors withhold information we cannot know what they aren't saying. If my doctor had not mentioned it first, I would not have thought or known to ask about an IUD. You have consistently assumed that women know what questions to ask about a topic with which they have limited, inexpert knowledge. I am trying to get you to see the implications of that.

True if you stand like a child and blindly follow, taking no personal responsibility.

Some of the patients in question are children. I do not judge another's ignorance. I accept it and work with it in mind when I seek to ensure that their and my rights are protected.

Doctors have special knowledge. They assume that they know more than the vast majority of patients and they are right.

Yes I agree. Can you point out to me 15 cases to back your statements. Real life names and cases.

I am not going to waste time jumping through your hoops. Why 15? Why not 20? Why is one case of injustice not enough to enrage you? If it only happens once in while its okay? I'll let my friend know that you are okay with her rights having been violated because it doesn't happen often enough to warrant remedy Is fifteen the magic number for you? Fifteen in how many years?

As I have said I agree as to the concept but you make only statements of belief making them as if statements of fact.

All my statements are true. Accept them or not as you like.

Does such things happen, yes are they right, no. But you say it is wide spread. 15 cases should be easy.

No I didn't. You are assuming again. As I said, why is one not enough to enrage you? I do not accept injustice on the basis of what happens to the majority. Once is once too many.

In fact do this name all catholic hospitals in the country and give me the data on 2 cases in each hospital.

[rolleyes] You over estimate your importance to me.

Seems you do. I see adds all the time on TV, shows talking about it, planned parenthood etc, health class in most schools.

Good for you. How can you know what someone else has seen? How can you know that they understood everything that saw and that all of it was accurate? You don't even know that what you have seen and read is accurate. Have you done the researdh? Shall we call you doctor now? I am not willing to bet a girls life on her understanding of an ad for Norplant.

Mothers teaching their children, friends talking good DRs….

So doctors need to be consulted?

If a woman goes to her doctor because her periods are irregular and painful does she not deserve treatment?

I will love to see where I said or anyone here has said she does not… May I ask for the data on how many do not get it?

Taking a statement out of context. You are the one being dishonest.

I don't know how many people go untreated or improperly treated every year. I know that one did and that is one too many.

I believe as I have said even one is wrong but sadly there are many cases of all people, male, female etc not being given the help they need.

And yet you tolerate it. Why?

Very sad and wrong. I look forward to the cases you over, the % of DR’s doing this, the hospitals doing this and allowing it where the medical board when contacted did nothing etc.. I will be happy to discuss the cases when you give all the data.

Uh gee, I must have left my home work at home. The dog ate it, that's right.

If you want to hear an anecdote I'll tell you one but I am not going to spend alot of time and energy to gather "data" for you. Either you appreciate that women's rights are violated or you don't. Either you understand that doctors are scientists and care givers first and Catholics second or you don't. Either you understand the implications in statements you made or you don't. It's not my problem.

My friend I know you are passionate about this. I am passionate about the suffering of any being but do not allow emotion to blind me.

You are bloody right I am passionate about my rights. I can assure you that my eyes are wide open. If emotion were blinding me I would get all weepy over the thought of abortions and spend alot of time thinking about how people should behave rather than how they do behave. My path is illuminated by logic and pragmatism. What we want is irrelevant. We must address what is. The key word being address. Ignoring just one case of injustice is unacceptable. Allowing one person's rights to be violated sets a precedent which allows all our rights to be violated.

Glory

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
Yes they do. just as they take on the rest of the resonsibilities associated with caring for their patients. What makes contraception any less their business than fertility?
…
Clearly, if you are intent on refusing to acknowledge pregnancy as a medical condition there is nothing I can do to change that. Why then, do you suppose, medicaL doctors take such an interest in it? Why are obstetricians medical doctors??I agree that doctors can, by virtue of their unique training and skills, take on responsibilities that do not strictly fall within the field of medicine, and once such responsibilities are taken on they should be carried out with competence and concern. However, being a medical doctor does not by itself create obligations to take on such responsibilities.

Consider the following standard definitions of the field of medicine drawn from the sources available at Dictionary.com:

"A scientifically-based discipline dedicated to the prevention and treatment of disease and injury."
"The science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind."
"The science which relates to the prevention, cure, or alleviation of disease."
"The learned profession that is mastered by graduate training in a medical school and that is devoted to preventing or alleviating or curing diseases and injuries."

Several things should be obvious from these definitions (in addition to their virtual uniformity). First, it should be obvious why pregnancy is of interest to medical doctors and why obstetrics is a subfield of medicine: because under certain circumstances disease and injury can arise (in mother or child) in the course of pregnancy, and doctors are devoted to preventing and treating disease and injury. Second, it should be obvious why preventing pregnancy, under normal healthy conditions (i.e. except to cure, alleviate or prevent a diagnosed or reasonably anticipated disease or injury), does not fall within the field of medicine. Try to make a healthy pregnancy fit the definition of disease, injury or disorder without doing violence to the normal medical understanding of those terms. It can't be done. If I'm overlooking something in the definition, kindly point it out. Otherwise, I accept that the main business of doctors is the practice of medicine, which (except in a narrow legal sense) does not include prescribing birth control except to treat or prevent a diagnosed or reasonably anticipated medical problem (and not simply to prevent normal pregnancies with no medical complications). More power to those doctors who voluntarily assume that responsibility, but I do not hold it against them as doctors if they choose not to. All they signed on to do when they took their oath was to practice medicine in accordance with the traditions and requirements of that field.
Originally posted by Glory
Ob/Gyn's are medical doctors. You insist that medical doctors are not obligated to do anything that is not directly related to a medical problem and yet it is medical doctors that care for pregnant patients. It is medical doctors who prescribe contraception and it is medical doctors doing research in the field. You may think that it isn't their responsibility but they seem to disagree.Again, caring for pregnant patients falls within the scope of a doctor's core professional concerns for the reasons I explained above. As for prescribing non-therapeutic contraception, how do you infer from the fact that it occurs that it is a compulsory responsibility dictated by professional obligations?
Originally posted by Glory
I can infer from this that you have never had a bad drug reaction. I would expect the doctor to tell me the types of meds available and explain the effects of each type. I would expect that he would ask me about details of my health that would impact the effects of the different types of drugs. I would expect him to ascertain wether or not I have any allergies and wether or not I am taking anything else.Your inference would be wrong; perhaps I should have made more explicit in that hypothetical the assumption that the doctor would already be observing basic responsibilities necessary to doing a competent job, such as evaluating the risk of adverse drug interactions or reactions and so forth. I note that your response dodged the real issue.
Originally posted by Glory
You are fairly certain or you are sure? I am fairly certain that there are hospitals that will not prescribe anything that functions as birth control for any reason. That and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Again, it's only one basic right that they are violating so that's not so bad.Perhaps I should rephrase. I am aware of little to no evidence that would lead me to believe that where a treatment is the most medically appropriate for a serious disorder but incidentally functions as birth control, Catholic hospitals, as a general matter, will not prescribe, arrange for or advise patients about such treatments. By the same token, I am aware of some evidence suggesting the contrary. If you think it would be useful to the discussion to resolve this issue, I suggest we investigate it further.
Originally posted by Glory
I have tried very hard, over the years, to remain inclusive of men in this issue. It is getting increasingly more difficult to do so as I get older and gain more experience with men who trivialize the importance of birth control. They do so by tolerating those who stand between women and access to it. They do so by placing the burden of knowledge on the shoulders of young teens about whom they know nothing. They do so by tolerating inconveniences placed in the path of women living in rural areas. If one black person's rights are violated there is public outrage. Why are women not equally protected?Unfortunately, having a right in many cases does not imply a governmental guarantee that you will be able to exercise it with maximum effectiveness, or even with the same level of effectiveness as any other person.

A better example would be your right to free speech. Obviously, someone who has the advantage of owning a chain of newspapers, magazines and radio stations is going to be able to exercise her right of free expression far more effectively, and draw much more benefit from it, than a young uneducated person living in a rural area. But even if every single media outlet in the country refuses to give you a platform to express your opinions, your right hasn't been violated, because that right exists vis-à-vis the state. It is a right to be free from undue government interference in the expression of your opinions.

Similarly, you have a right to be free from undue government interference in your reproductive decisions (which is why state laws criminalizing the dissemination of birth control information have been struck down). But that doesn't mean that the omissions of private actors amount to a violation of your rights. It may be lamentable, but casting the situation of private physicians declining to propose birth control in terms of an infringement of patients' rights is simply unwarranted, and only tends to hinder us in approaching the situation realistically and clearheadedly. I wholeheartedly support the right to access to birth control. I appear, though, to understand its boundaries in a different way than you do.

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I agree that doctors can, by virtue of their unique training and skills, take on responsibilities that do not strictly fall within the field of medicine, and once such responsibilities are taken on they should be carried out with competence and concern. However, being a medical doctor does not by itself create obligations to take on such responsibilities.

We have a right to birth control. We can only get birth control through a doctor. A doctor has the right to refuse to prescribe or even discuss birth control? This doesn't work. Doctors do not have the right to deny a patient her rights. Because of their unique power in the situation they have the ability to deny women their right to birth control. That is entirely unacceptable. The power which they have accepted, and made sure that they retained, carries with it the responsibility to provide that to which we are entitled.

Several things should be obvious from these definitions (in addition to their virtual uniformity). First, it should be obvious why pregnancy is of interest to medical doctors and why obstetrics is a subfield of medicine: because under certain circumstances disease and injury can arise (in mother or child) in the course of pregnancy, and doctors are devoted to preventing and treating disease and injury.

It is entirely obvious to me. You are the one who seems to think that because pregnancy and contraception aren't medical issues.

Second, it should be obvious why preventing pregnancy, under normal healthy conditions (i.e. except to cure, alleviate or prevent a diagnosed or reasonably anticipated disease or injury), does not fall within the field of medicine.

It is not entirely relevant but has it ever occurred to you that doctors cannot predict the future? They cannot know who will suffer which complications from pregnancy. Their are also other reasons to prevent pregnancy, most of which have medical implications. Mental health problems, for instance, often result from unwanted pregnancy.

Try to make a healthy pregnancy fit the definition of disease, injury or disorder without doing violence to the normal medical understanding of those terms. It can't be done. If I'm overlooking something in the definition, kindly point it out. Otherwise, I accept that the main business of doctors is the practice of medicine, which (except in a narrow legal sense) does not include prescribing birth control except to treat or prevent a diagnosed or reasonably anticipated medical problem (and not simply to prevent normal pregnancies with no medical complications).

Do unwanted pregnancies count as normal and healthy? Does a severly depressed woman count as normal and healthy?

Delivering healthy babies under normal circumstances doesn't have anything to do with disease. The mother is not injured and when everything goes well, does not become injured. There is no disorder present. Why is this the responsibility od a medical doctor? Could it be that the responsibilties of MD's goes beyond the definition of medical provided by dictionary dot com? You see, that is the assumtion of yours which I am rejecting. The idea that if it doesn't involve Webster's definition of medical it isn't their responsibility. Doctors do more than cure. They treat more than our injuries.

More power to those doctors who voluntarily assume that responsibility, but I do not hold it against them as doctors if they choose not to. All they signed on to do when they took their oath was to practice medicine in accordance with the traditions and requirements of that field.

And the traditions of that field require them to care for their patients and see to all their medical, surgical, and obstetric needs. That includes ensuring reproductive freedom. As soon as they relinquish their monopoly on prescription birth control they may relinquish their responsibility. Of course, surgical sterilization still requires their involvement. Gee, there's a can of worms we haven't opened yet. Surgical sterilization is another responsibility that falls to doctors because only they possess the skill and knowledge required to perform the procedure.

Again, caring for pregnant patients falls within the scope of a doctor's core professional concerns for the reasons I explained above. As for prescribing non-therapeutic contraception, how do you infer from the fact that it occurs that it is a compulsory responsibility dictated by professional obligations?

You say it is "nontherapeutic". I say it is a necessity for women to live as they have a right to live. There are many therapeutic qualities to being free of the risk of pregnancy. You don't seem to want to consider mental health, though, so I can only assume you will keep parroting the same answers.

Your inference would be wrong; perhaps I should have made more explicit in that hypothetical the assumption that the doctor would already be observing basic responsibilities necessary to doing a competent job, such as evaluating the risk of adverse drug interactions or reactions and so forth. I note that your response dodged the real issue.

So the doctor would be sharing information with you? He would be discussing the options with you so that you could make an informed decision?

Apparantly, I misunderstood the point of your analogy because my answer directly addressed the issue with which I am concerned. That doctors who refrain from discussing options with their patients and who avoid certain topics are ignoring their obligations to their patients. And, expecting the patient to ask all the right questions is not reasonable or realistic. What was your point?

Perhaps I should rephrase. I am aware of little to no evidence that would lead me to believe that where a treatment is the most medically appropriate for a serious disorder but incidentally functions as birth control, Catholic hospitals, as a general matter, will not prescribe, arrange for or advise patients about such treatments. By the same token, I am aware of some evidence suggesting the contrary. If you think it would be useful to the discussion to resolve this issue, I suggest we investigate it further.

It isn't really relevant to the discussion anymore. The issue is wether or not doctors have a responsibility to provide information on birth control and appropriate prescriptions for those who want them. The policy in Catholic hospitals regarding off label prescriptions is related but ultimately a seperate issue.

Unfortunately, having a right in many cases does not imply a governmental guarantee that you will be able to exercise it with maximum effectiveness, or even with the same level of effectiveness as any other person.

A better example would be your right to free speech. Obviously, someone who has the advantage of owning a chain of newspapers, magazines and radio stations is going to be able to exercise her right of free expression far more effectively, and draw much more benefit from it, than a young uneducated person living in a rural area. But even if every single media outlet in the country refuses to give you a platform to express your opinions, your right hasn't been violated, because that right exists vis-à-vis the state. It is a right to be free from undue government interference in the expression of your opinions.

And allowing licensed physicians to prevent women from obtaining birth control constitutes interference.

Your free speech example hits the tree but misses the target. It depends on why a particular media outlet refuses to provide a platform. Media is under government regulation as well. They cannot refuse to air an oppinion simply because they don't like it. That does violate the right to free speech. Hence the existence of equal time rules and such.

The catch is that people in our society who have unique power carry equally unique obligations.

Similarly, you have a right to be free from undue government interference in your reproductive decisions (which is why state laws criminalizing the dissemination of birth control information have been struck down). But that doesn't mean that the omissions of private actors amount to a violation of your rights.

Not all private individuals. Just those with unique powers granted them by the government.

It may be lamentable, but casting the situation of private physicians declining to propose birth control in terms of an infringement of patients' rights is simply unwarranted, and only tends to hinder us in approaching the situation realistically and clearheadedly. I wholeheartedly support the right to access to birth control. I appear, though, to understand its boundaries in a different way than you do.

How does tolerating the actions of those who directly interfere with that right support it? How do you reconcile supporting the right to free access to birth control with allowing doctors to stand in the way of that access? Why are doctors allowed to defer to their religious beliefs over those of their patients?

Glory

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
And allowing licensed physicians to prevent women from obtaining birth control constitutes interference.

Your free speech example hits the tree but misses the target. It depends on why a particular media outlet refuses to provide a platform. Media is under government regulation as well. They cannot refuse to air an oppinion simply because they don't like it. That does violate the right to free speech. Hence the existence of equal time rules and such.

The catch is that people in our society who have unique power carry equally unique obligations.I'm off for the weekend, so I only have time to address this point. Media outlets (and I meant that in the broadest sense, from book publishers to radio stations) certainly can refuse to disseminate an opinion because they don't like it. The so-called equal time rule is a very, very narrow exception applying only to radio/TV broadcasters who agree to allow at least one candidate for political office to use the station for political purposes. Nothing, of course, says that a broadcast station is obliged to let any candidates at all air their views, and even the equal time rule does not prevent a broadcaster from airing only one candidate's point of view so long as it does not constitute a use of the station by the candidate.

Apart from that highly limited situation, every single private publisher, editor and broadcaster in the country is entitled to refuse to help you exercise your freedom of speech if they don't like what you have to say. The right to free speech is a right not to have the government put undue obstacles in your path. It's not an entitlement to require anyone else to lift a finger to aid you in actually securing a platform to express yourself. That would violate their rights. The right to practice birth control is similar, as I see it.

Your suggestion that any of this depends on why a media outlet refuses to provide a platform is simply wrong. Even the equal time provision in the federal Communications Act does not address motive. With all these erroneous distinctions out of the way, I'm interested to know how you think the nature of the right to birth control and the nature of the right to free speech differ in relevant respects.

[Cleopatra]

Pahansiri I really read all the posts in the threads I participate in.

Noblesse oblige... Of course If I make any mistake while interpreting a poster's point I am here to correct my mistake.

Originally posted by Pahansiri

Can you give me the date to support “most” people do not know what to ask a doctor? What % of people will constitute “most” people?

When it comes to medical issues even one (1) individual is enough.

I am not uneducated. I knew the basics about contraception but when I really needed it I had to discuss the issue with a doctor.

Even if I were a Nobel laureated nuclear scientist, when it comes to contraception I'd need the advice of an expert.

People can find advice in Internet too but this doesn't mean that they can cure themselves.

So, my point is that even a single individual can make the difference, so I don't need percentages to support my point of view.

But I will agree many people either do not know, or are to shy, or will not question a DR. But “most” I would need proof to belief that.

Shall I reply to this?

But just like I have been with Glory and the base of her beliefs I agree with your position and statement less the over statement.

No you don't agree with Glory and me because you might aknowledge that it's wrong for a physician to impose his religious beliefs but then you claim that it's the patient's/client's responsibility to take the decision. You don't reply to the question: " What happens when a psysician withholds information?"

Your statement supports what I have been saying as to people have the responsibility to learn and question.

I will try to make this as less personal as possible because I wouldn't want to offend our aesthetics here. Panhasiri, when I visited a gynecologist about contraception it turned out that I didn't know what questions to pose because I didn't know back then some health issues I had and made the whole thing more complicated than I thought. If I relied on Internet for example I'd never know what is best for me. If I relied to a Christian doctor the same would happen to me.

The fact is I believe when a large majority of woman go to a DR for birth control they have at least a working idea of some of the options, if the DR says “ No I will not prescribe it because I don’t believe God likes it” . If the woman stays or just says “OK” SHE is wrong and more so then him. He was “honest” to stay is silly..

First of all don't make such assumptions. Second as I mentioned to the example from my job the specialist is obliged to provide detailed info about the options his client has and then state whether he can take over his case or not.

She went there knowing what she wanted so if he will not give it, leave.

Again, wrong. A 16 years old girl has no idea, unless she reads Cosmopolitan but yet in that case she'd know better other things.

Again a VERY large overstatement that is wrong. Perhaps a Greek Orthodox may not but I do not know all Greek Orthodox DR, do you? Can you know what each will and will not do?

Exactly because I do not know I want to have blind trust in them.


I want to address a couple of points ceo_esq has made but for the moment ceo_esq, enjoy your weekend.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Cleopatra.

I was not going to make any more post here as to respond to my friend Glory again is illogical as my post are clear and can be read by anyone who wishes to.

She will not think clearly on this topic and will only falsely accuse people of thinking or believing what it is clear in their post they do not.

Emotion, I believe blinds her that is just what I believe and readers will have to read all the post and come to their own conclusions, I mean her nor anyone disrespect.


But I did want to make one last post in response to your last post for it contains some of the same things I tried to point out to Glory.

Things such as over and sweeping statements and stating that the other poster said or believes something. When asked for evidence of this many find dance moves are performed but no facts. The same is true for my calls for you or Glory to back up sweeping statements with facts, again very find dancing but no facts.

What is given rather then as when someone say I said or believe something and I ask simply post from my post where I said such all I get back is more accusations I said or believe something but no facts i.e. where I said such.

I just do not understand this, if I say something is fact, i.e. a statement of fact I give the facts of a developed logical conclusion. If I say something is what I believe I try to give what facts or logic is available but say clearly it is what I believe.

I respond to each and every point and question asked of me, I find so many do not do the same and just avoid what they do not wish to or can not address. I am sure you have also found this.

I do not make sweeping statements.

If I say someone said something, I post what he or she said.

If I am ever wrong and am often I say I am wrong. I do not fear being wrong or learning new things. This is hard to find, people who will conduct anger free, emotion free, logical factual respectful debate. For this reason it is time for a break from discussion boards for me.


I do not declare that anyone is good or bad, right or wrong for not posting in the style I do, what is, simply is.

I wish only everyone to be well and happy.

To your post.

Pahansiri I really read all the posts in the threads I participate in.

Noblesse oblige... Of course If I make any mistake while interpreting a poster's point I am here to correct my mistake.

I believe you read them but as I said I believe you may read into them at times seeing what you wish and ignoring what may really be said.

I believe my last post pointed this out.

To your next part let me first post your statement from the last post and then my response to which you just responded to.

You first wrote:

You might aknowledge the fact that all people are entitled to have unrestricted access to information but in the most of the cases people do not know what to ask a doctor.

I responded :

Can you give me the date( should have been data) to support “most” people do not know what to ask a doctor? What % of people will constitute “most” people?


Before I post what you last posted and respond to it allow me to say that your statement besides containing an over and sweeping statement contains a false accusation about what I have or have not said.

Clearly in all my post I speak about the rights and freedoms of all beings that all need have the same rights in all things. My statements are clear that all are entitled to have unrestricted access to information.

But made it clear that your saying “most” is an unknown and a sweeping statement devoid of facts. But again I agree many do not and that is sad, many do not have food, 24000 starve to death everyday there is great suffering and feel great compassion for the suffering of all beings.


You respond:

When it comes to medical issues even one (1) individual is enough.

I agree fully now where are your facts to support your statement of in the most of the cases people do not know what to ask a doctor.

This is an over statement and that is my point. We need say what we mean and mean what we say. Such statements or statements of this kind are made untold times during a day, “ blacks are drug dealers” “Jews are cheap” “ woman are dumb whores” etc.

Was your statement as foolish as these harmful words? No but in the same class as over statements.

To ever say “all of these are this or that” is or can be harmful and when such a statement hits home we react but we often use them about others.

I am not uneducated. I knew the basics about contraception but when I really needed it I had to discuss the issue with a doctor.

Even if I were a Nobel laureated nuclear scientist, when it comes to contraception I'd need the advice of an expert.

TRUE. And here like with our friend Glory you seem to suggest I disagree. I clearly have not.

My point from my first post if a DR says clearly to you that he does not believe in contraception and will not give it to you, WALK OUT and find someone who will.

I believe all rights need be protected and all need to be helped and cared for. AS I have said over and over I do NOT agree with them doing this but they have the right, that is the right to be up front and say clearly to you that he does not believe in contraception and will not give it to you.



People can find advice in Internet too but this doesn't mean that they can cure themselves.

Did not say they could.

So, my point is that even a single individual can make the difference, so I don't need percentages to support my point of view.

When you make the statement in such a way as in the most of the cases people do not know what to ask a doctor.
You do, you have to prove most, you could have said many, many and been right.

What if I said “ Most woman have affairs” such sweeping statements lead to hate. Yours in this case was not such a statement but was sweeping and that is my point.

I wrote” But I will agree many people either do not know, or are to shy, or will not question a DR. But “most” I would need proof to belief that.

You responded:

Shall I reply to this?

That would be up to you, as you see I was agreeing with you as to people not knowing or being able to ask etc, I just will not say “most”.

No you don't agree with Glory and me because you might aknowledge that it's wrong for a physician to impose his religious beliefs but then you claim that it's the patient's/client's responsibility to take the decision. You don't reply to the question: " What happens when a psysician withholds information?"

Not the case as I said and you misstated ( I forgive you lol) I said I fully agree with your core beliefs here and with many things.
1- I DO believe the patient's/client's responsibility is to leave if he says he will NOT give contraception due to his beliefs, to leave. Also to if you feel he is with holding info to push him, if that does not work and you feel woman are in danger turn him in.
2- I also believe we need to learn all we can about our health care for all reasons, many will not or can not and I said clearly a DR that withholds truth needs be turned in.

For that reason your statement You don't reply to the question: " What happens when a psysician withholds information?"


Is very untrue and by reading my post this is clear.

I will try to make this as less personal as possible because I wouldn't want to offend our aesthetics here. Panhasiri, when I visited a gynecologist about contraception it turned out that I didn't know what questions to pose because I didn't know back then some health issues I had and made the whole thing more complicated than I thought. If I relied on Internet for example I'd never know what is best for me. If I relied to a Christian doctor the same would happen to me.


But you did NOT relay on a Christian doctor who told you he did not believe in contraceptives.

The above statement is again very sweeping and prejudice.

Here you suggest that Christian doctors will mislead you. This is prejudice, will some YES all no, I believe most will not. Look at the make up of the country/ US as to religious believe. You will find that by % MOST DR’s are Christian.

Some will do what is wrong, withhold information, most do NOT.

This is similar to my asking Glory to list for me all Catholic DR’s and Hospitals and prove they all do what she said.. Her response? Crickets.

You are wrong for saying If I relied to a Christian doctor the same would happen to me.


This next section is rather ironic.

I had written:

The fact is I believe when a large majority of woman go to a DR for birth control they have at least a working idea of some of the options, if the DR says “ No I will not prescribe it because I don’t believe God likes it” . If the woman stays or just says “OK” SHE is wrong and more so then him. He was “honest” to stay is silly..

You responded:

First of all don't make such assumptions. Second as I mentioned to the example from my job the specialist is obliged to provide detailed info about the options his client has and then state whether he can take over his case or not.

WOW did you really as me not to make such assumptions.


LOL The pot is calling the , well stainless steel kettle black. As I have demonstrated several of your statements are HUGE baseless assumptions.
Please really read my post as to what I said. I said clearly [“The fact is I believe when a large majority of woman go to a DR for birth control they have at least a working idea of some of the options,”

I said I believed, I assumed little to nothing .In this country with TV and Sex ed in school etc and adds, planned parenthood etc many, I will say most have at least a working idea, some facts and can ask smart questions.


You will respond what if he with holds facts. I have said what should be done but as I said there will be cases where the person can’t do so.

Would it be best if DR’s had to be truthful and honest YES YES YES as I have said. Will it happen, who knows for sure I hope so but have a greater fear that the government we have now and people who are in the same belief will in time gain their will and end such things as planned parenthood etc.

That will be a sad day and it is that we need to stand for.

My point has always been first to the DR that said he did not believe in it, he was clear and you knew where he stood and he has every right to stand there, but not a right to lie.



I wrote
Again, wrong. A 16 years old girl has no idea, unless she reads Cosmopolitan but yet in that case she'd know better other things.

1st- a 16 year old would need a parent and it is a hope that parent was loving and logical and was there to help her.

2nd another sweeping statement, a 16 yearold will have NO idea? ALL 16 year olds? Really?? The data please..lol

In this country a DR can not put a 16 year old on the pill etc with out the parent.. Your statement does not fit here.

But I agree parents and sex ed needs to teach more. I wish children did not have sex it is too early and so hard.

I was molested starting at 5 so have not been a virgin if you from that time. It caused great suffering and problems. I teach my children truth and love and respect for themselves and all beings, all.

That would be the first place to start, at home.

You had written this wild over statement:
A Catholic or a Greek Orthodox doctor will [b]never mention contraception to a patient so how is it possible for their patients to choose?

I responded Again a VERY large overstatement that is wrong. Perhaps a Greek Orthodox may not but I do not know all Greek Orthodox DR, do you? Can you know what each will and will not do?

You wrote back, this.

Exactly because I do not know I want to have blind trust in them.

????? what?

Your statement was silly, A Catholic or a Greek Orthodox doctor will never mention contraception to a patient

Here again you make a huge silly statement about every single Catholic or a Greek Orthodox DR. The fact is there are many Catholic ( I do not know any Greek Orthodox DR’s so can not say) who do.

I asked you this in regards to that statement Unless you can post the name of every Catholic or a Greek Orthodox Dr and proof they will NEVER mention contraception to a patient.

Did I miss your list? Overstatements are silly, you are a very intelligent person and these statements are below your true intelligence.

May you and all be well and happy..

Pahan has left the building

[Glory]

Pahansiri,

You list every Catholic hospital in the country, get me their addresses and phone numbers and I will start calling them and inquiring about their policies.

I resent your implication that because I am not going to spend to time and energy completing an unreasonable and unrealistically large homework assignment I am unable to provide proof of my assertions. I also resent your strawmen. I did not use words like all or most. You have exagerated my statements so as to render them unreasonable and unverifiable. Lastly, you have resorted to attacking me rather than my statements. I will not be adressing further comments to you.

Glory

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Glory
Pahansiri,

You list every Catholic hospital in the country, get me their addresses and phone numbers and I will start calling them and inquiring about their policies.

I resent your implication that because I am not going to spend to time and energy completing an unreasonable and unrealistically large homework assignment I am unable to provide proof of my assertions. I also resent your strawmen. I did not use words like all or most. You have exagerated my statements so as to render them unreasonable and unverifiable. Lastly, you have resorted to attacking me rather than my statements. I will not be adressing further comments to you.

Glory

Greetings my friend Glory.


You list every Catholic hospital in the country, get me their addresses and phone numbers and I will start calling them and inquiring about their policies.

No my friend you made the statements, you have the responsibility and burden to prove them not I.


I resent your implication that because I am not going to spend to time and energy completing an unreasonable and unrealistically large homework assignment I am unable to provide proof of my assertions.


My friend you may resent it and I respect that but if you were arrested and went to trail for murder and the prosecutors evidence was “ She id it, I rest my case” would you not desire real facts, evidence?


I also resent your strawmen. I did not use words like all or most.

May I ask they you post my words from my post where I said “Glory used the words most or all”

Knowing you will not provide this allow me to offer you this from your post and to which I speak.


I don't like the idea that my insurance company may require that I be treated at a catholic hospital because information about reproductive health and/or birth control may be withheld from me.


Here you do say rightly “may” be withheld.

Here Had I been under the care of a catholic hospital, she would not have been permitted to make such a suggestion.

You make a statement that “she would NOT have been permitted” this is simply not the case in all Catholic hospitals. I called a friend who is a DR at a local Catholic hospital one at which I lectured at concerning nutrition so I know several DR’s there. She informed me that DR’s are NOT restricted in what they may or may not say as to contraception.

She went on to say all DR’s will discuss contraception and are free to do so, most do prescribe and a few do not. But all discuss the options.



You have exagerated my statements so as to render them unreasonable and unverifiable.

May I ask that you post my words, from my post where I did this?


Lastly, you have resorted to attacking me rather than my statements. I will not be adressing further comments to you.

May I ask that you post my words from my post where I attacked you?

I am sure you will not be able to do this it is also clear you ignore where I say I respect you etc.


I addressed each of your post, answered your questions and addressed your points. My post are there, I believe you read them with eyes that wish to see what they wish to see but that is just what I believe.


Your anger is unfounded and self defeating and only causing you suffering.


May you be well and happy.

[Glory]

Ceo-esq,

You are correct. I was confused about that. That’s what I get for writing before breakfast. Media outlets are not obligated to air anything. The relevant issue is that is not legal to take steps to restrict speech. They can’t actively stop you from airing your opinion. There are numerous restrictions to free speech, raising false alarms and libelous speech for instance. That is neither hear nor there.

I am really getting tired of saying the same thing over and over again so this will be the last time.

The fact that the only way to exercise my rights in this matter of birth control is to employ a doctor puts an obligation on the doctor to help me. That is how it is. My right to birth control is as basic as my right to speech, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Doctors are obligated to prescribe that which will make us healthier. You may not consider having an unwanted fetus in your body to be unhealthy. I most certainly do and there are more than a few doctors who agree with me regardless of your definition of the word medical.

It doesn’t really matter if a woman is harmed by pregnancy or not. A doctor must not put his religion before that of his patient. It isn’t about finding medical reasons to put a woman on the pill. It is about the fact that there is no medically compelling reason not to. In the absence of a medically compelling reason to deny the prescription, the doctor has no right to deny a woman hers. Doctors, and only doctors, are, in this strange instance, in a position to facilitate the exercise of our rights and, thus, are obligated to do so.

The things existence means I have the right to pursue it. Doctors are not permitted to stand in the way of that pursuit. By abusing their position and refusing to prescribe they are standing in the way of that pursuit. That is why the fact that it exists, coupled with the fact that I cannot pursue it in the absence of a doctor’s care, obligates doctors to prescribe it.

If free speech had to be facilitated by someone other than the speaker that would be compulsory for the facilitators as well, so long as it is a right guaranteed us by the laws of the land.

Glory

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
You are correct. I was confused about that. That’s what I get for writing before breakfast. Media outlets are not obligated to air anything. The relevant issue is that is not legal to take steps to restrict speech. They can’t actively stop you from airing your opinion. There are numerous restrictions to free speech, raising false alarms and libelous speech for instance. That is neither hear nor there.

I am really getting tired of saying the same thing over and over again so this will be the last time.

The fact that the only way to exercise my rights in this matter of birth control is to employ a doctor puts an obligation on the doctor to help me. That is how it is. My right to birth control is as basic as my right to speech, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Doctors are obligated to prescribe that which will make us healthier. You may not consider having an unwanted fetus in your body to be unhealthy. I most certainly do and there are more than a few doctors who agree with me regardless of your definition of the word medical.

It doesn’t really matter if a woman is harmed by pregnancy or not. A doctor must not put his religion before that of his patient. It isn’t about finding medical reasons to put a woman on the pill. It is about the fact that there is no medically compelling reason not to. In the absence of a medically compelling reason to deny the prescription, the doctor has no right to deny a woman hers. Doctors, and only doctors, are, in this strange instance, in a position to facilitate the exercise of our rights and, thus, are obligated to do so.

The things existence means I have the right to pursue it. Doctors are not permitted to stand in the way of that pursuit. By abusing their position and refusing to prescribe they are standing in the way of that pursuit. That is why the fact that it exists, coupled with the fact that I cannot pursue it in the absence of a doctor’s care, obligates doctors to prescribe it.

If free speech had to be facilitated by someone other than the speaker that would be compulsory for the facilitators as well, so long as it is a right guaranteed us by the laws of the land.We agree that even though the government can permissibly place some restrictions on the time, place and manner of our expression, it cannot put undue obstacles in the path of the exercise of our free speech. However, there is no guarantee that everyone is going to be able to exercise that right with maximum effectiveness, or even that anyone will be able to exercise it as effectively as his or her neighbor. There are many factors that determine how effectively I will be able to exercise my right to free expression: education, money, location, ability to procure the best and most sophisticated tools and aids for promoting my message, and so forth. Likewise, it seems to me that people have a general, fundamental right to seek to plan and regulate their pregnancy and childbearing (let's call it the "birth control right" for short). Many of the same considerations relevant to the effective exercise of the right to free expression also apply to the effective exercise of the birth control right.

As with most general rights, there are many theoretically available tools and forms for exercising both your free speech right and your birth control right - some sophisticated and very effective; others crude and only slightly effective. One might say that taking the pill is to the birth control right what publishing an article in a magazine or participating in a televised debate is to the free speech right - highly effective, but ordinarily requiring (among other things) the voluntary collaboration of other private parties. Similarly, one might say that using the "rhythm method" is to the birth control right what putting a bumper sticker on your automobile or standing outside your house holding a handprinted sign is to the free speech right - i.e. only a marginally effective means of exercising your right.

Your right to free speech does not create an obligation in any private third party (even third parties subject to some form of government regulation) to cooperate in providing you with a platform for your expression, even though in practical terms such cooperation may be necessary in order for you to exercise that right with effective results. The ultimate consequence - that some citizens have a hugely influential say in public discourse while others have next to none - may seem inegalitarian, I grant you. There are some worthwhile ways to combat this situation, but the situation by itself is not generally understood to constitute an infringement of free speech rights, and few people would argue that the proper solution involves limiting the rights of third parties or creating new obligations for them. Accordingly, I disagree with your premise that private parties who are capable - even uniquely capable - of facilitating the effective exercise of certain rights should necessarily be obligated to do so.

I think that the birth control right is a right of fundamental importance, just as the right to free expression is. This is part of the reason why I am using the latter to help reach an understanding of the former. But as far as I can see, just about every aspect of exercising the birth control right finds a rough parallel in the free speech context. You seem to agree with my conclusions about how the free speech right operates, yet all the distinctions you've raised between the two rights turn out, upon inspection, to be illusory. What I would like to know (and I mean this not merely rhetorically, because if there is a better argument out there I will be the first to subscribe to it) is this: what finally distinguishes (in a relevant way) the one from the other, such that we could discern an absolute obligation for private doctors to provide us with the most effective possible means of exercising our right to regulate conception? Bearing in mind, of course, that any specific method of birth control is simply a tool (or "platform") for exercising the birth control right, and does not constitute the right per se.

I understand what your view is, and our respective positions are probably ultimately closer than you realize. You sound a little exasperated, but I assure you I'm not calling on you to repeat what you've already said. instead, I'm trying to focus on what you haven't said yet, because there seem to me to be gaps in your argumentation that are not bridged by any of the points you've raised thus far.

[Cleopatra]

ceo_esq


Whether a normal pregnacy and birth-control for not therapeutical reasons are medical issues or not both of them constitute chapters of specialized knowledge that only specialized doctors hold and can distribute with safety to people.

As you pointed out, in a democratic environment there are many factors that guarantee an effective exercise of the right of free expression. Your observation is confirmed by History as well. Until the recent past, humans have found ways to overcome difficulties and exercize their right of free expression regardless of their financial or educational level. We have seen it happening therefore we know that willing humans can succeed in exercising this right even under the most unfavorable circumstances.

When it comes to scientific issues like birthcontrol (as we have accepted medical or not birthcontrol is a scientific issue) , things are not the same I am afraid. However willing somebody might be, the obstacle of ignorance is impossible to be surpassed.

Experience shows that a misjudgement in the handling of a condition that is related to birth control can be fatal for the individual.

So, as we have seen so far doctors hold: Exclusive and specialized knowledge and exclusive right to use tools( drugs) that can eliminate the risk of death.


For the sake of argument I will accept that birth control and free speech are among the general rights that do not create obligations to third parties ( although I disagree that this stands for birth-control too) I am sure that you will agree that we have an open issue when it comes to the protection of a human's life.

[Cleopatra]

Also, ceo_esq I must confess that I am a bit surpised at the fact that you avoided to discuss the issue of Medical Ethics under the perspective of Religion.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, ceo_esq I must confess that I am a bit surpised at the fact that you avoided to discuss the issue of Medical Ethics under the perspective of Religion.

ceo_esq

I hope that the post above doesn't sound like the usual rude/cheap comments you receive : "What a surpise you didn't defend the Catholic Church, ceo_esq".

I hope that it was obvious to you :)

While driving to work I debunked the argument I had in mind when I posted this last night. So please ignore it!

What I'd like we discuss though is if personal beliefs and moral values must be placed above professional ethics when somebody exercises his profession.

[ceo_esq]

I got it, Cleopatra. :)

I realize I've been ignoring the religious angle. I am ultimately interested in returning to the religion/medicine nexus, but I've become sidetracked in exploring the nature of the right to practice birth control. I think it would be helpful to understand what kind of right it, and what its boundaries are, before examining what happens (or should happen) when it interacts with other rights and obligations (such as those of physicians).

I also was interested in clarifying the essential nature of the medical profession in order better to understand what types of professional obligations should logically flow from that nature.

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
There are many factors that determine how effectively I will be able to exercise my right to free expression: education, money, location, ability to procure the best and most sophisticated tools and aids for promoting my message, and so forth. Likewise, it seems to me that people have a general, fundamental right to seek to plan and regulate their pregnancy and childbearing (let's call it the "birth control right" for short). Many of the same considerations relevant to the effective exercise of the right to free expression also apply to the effective exercise of the birth control right.

The fact that such limitations are placed on a woman's right to complete control of her own body is obescene. The idea that a woman has less control of her body because she is poor is utterly unacceptable. This is, I think, the biggest difference between us. I will not accept discrimination against women even on a small scale.

The right to free speech is limited when speech is injurious to others, libel and slander, or reckless, raising false alarms. Birth control poses no such risks to anyone other than the individual using it. There is no possibility of someone else being hurt by my using birth control. Ergo, there is no compelling reason for limitations to be placed on it.

One might say that taking the pill is to the birth control right what publishing an article in a magazine or participating in a televised debate is to the free speech right - highly effective, but ordinarily requiring (among other things) the voluntary collaboration of other private parties. Similarly, one might say that using the "rhythm method" is to the birth control right what putting a bumper sticker on your automobile or standing outside your house holding a handprinted sign is to the free speech right - i.e. only a marginally effective means of exercising your right.

This is where your analogy breaks down. Publishing an article is not akin, in any way, to taking the pill. The pill is to exercising the right to birth control as speaking is to exercising the right to free speech. The rhythm method is a failure to exercise birth control. It is akin to self censorship. You have failed to understand just how basic this right is.

Your right to free speech does not create an obligation in any private third party (even third parties subject to some form of government regulation) to cooperate in providing you with a platform for your expression, even though in practical terms such cooperation may be necessary in order for you to exercise that right with effective results.

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. My right to free speech does guarantee me the right literally be able to speak, write down or express my views, regardless of wether or not anyone else may be able to hear them. Birth control has but one purpose. You have made a false analogy. The third party must facilitate the exercise of the right in order for the right to be exercised at all. There is no such thing as ineffective birth control. It is either effective or it isn't control.

the consequence - that some citizens have a hugely influential say in public discourse while others have next to none - may seem inegalitarian, I grant you. There are some worthwhile ways to combat this situation, but the situation by itself is not generally understood to constitute an infringement of free speech rights, and few people would argue that the proper solution involves limiting the rights of third parties or creating new obligations for them. Accordingly, I disagree with your premise that private parties who are capable - even uniquely capable - of facilitating the effective exercise of certain rights should necessarily be obligated to do so.

Doctors are not publishers. They are different and labour under different obligations. I am not obligated to drive someone to the airport as I am not a licensed taxi driver. A licensed taxi driver is obligated to drive anyone who pays him to the airport regardless of his feelings about the individual's race, colour or creed because he is a licensed taxi driver. He is not however, obligated to provide his fare a forum to exercise her right to free speech or her right to reproductive freedom unless she is asking him to drive her to the airport for the purpose of catching a plane to take her to an appointment to do either of these things. At that point his actions and responsibilities become relavant. Different people, different obligations.

[As far as I can see, just about every aspect of exercising the birth control right finds a rough parallel in the free speech context.

These are two entirely different subjects. The only thing they have in common is that the right to each of them is guaranteed by the law of the land. I don't need a doctor to help me speak. My daughter does need a doctor and the help of other professionals to help her speak. Guess what? The government has decided that she is entitled to that help as it is fundamental to her being allowed to exercise her right to free expression.

What I would like to know (and I mean this not merely rhetorically, because if there is a better argument out there I will be the first to subscribe to it) is this: what finally distinguishes (in a relevant way) the one from the other, such that we could discern an absolute obligation for private doctors to provide us with the most effective possible means of exercising our right to regulate conception?

I think I have already answered this question. It is far easier to list the one thing they do have in common than the myriad things they don't. They are both rights we enjoy. That is it. All the simmilarities you attribute to them, other than that one, are illusory.

Bearing in mind, of course, that any specific method of birth control is simply a tool (or "platform") for exercising the birth control right, and does not constitute the right per se.

A tool that is being withheld. We do not have the right to any specific tool alone. We have the right to know about and utilize each and every exsiting tool.

I am indeed exasperated. It is frustrating and infuriating to see people tolerating an intolerable situation. I can only infer from that tolerance an ambivilence toward the rights of women with regard to reproductive freedom. What else is there to infer? My using birth control affects me and me alone. How is it anyone else's business? The lamentable fact is that I need a doctor to get it and so, to some extent, it is his business as well but only as much as it may be the business of the pharmacist who supplies the actual pills or the supply company who provided it.

No one requires one to enter into any given field. However, once they decide to enter a field, they are obligated to fulfill all of the responsibilities of the practitioners in that field.

Glory

[69dodge]

ceo_esq, let's forget about doctors for a moment. I walk into my neighborhood pharmacy and ask for birth control pills.

"Where's your prescription?"

"I don't have a prescription. Can't you you just give some pills anyway?"

"No way."

"Why not? Don't you want my business?"

"I'd love your business, but you wouldn't believe the trouble I'd get into with the government if I did that."

I don't see how you can argue that the government places no more restrictions on birth control than on free speech.

Newspaper publishers are uniquely capable of publishing newspapers because they're the ones who have the big printing presses. Doctors are uniquely capable of providing birth control pills because the government has outlawed all other ways of obtaining them.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq


I realize I've been ignoring the religious angle. I am ultimately interested in returning to the religion/medicine nexus, but I've become sidetracked in exploring the nature of the right to practice birth control. I think it would be helpful to understand what kind of right it, and what its boundaries are, before examining what happens (or should happen) when it interacts with other rights and obligations (such as those of physicians).

If I got it well, you haven't question the right to practice birth control. You have suggested that the fact that a practice is aknowledged as a right doesn't mean that private institutions or individuals have the obligation to secure the effective exercise of this right.

This notion might apply to free speech but as I mentioned to a previous message it doesn't apply to the exercise of the medical profession and to rights ( like birth control) that are indispensable to the medical profession in order to be exercised.

I also was interested in clarifying the essential nature of the medical profession in order better to understand what types of professional obligations should logically flow from that nature.

And I think that we must clarify ( or attempt to clarify) if somebody has the right to place his beliefs above his professional obligations while he is on duty. I think that I don't need to answer this because I have already done it I am interested in your point of view though. :)

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by 69dodge
ceo_esq, let's forget about doctors for a moment. I walk into my neighborhood pharmacy and ask for birth control pills.

"Where's your prescription?"

"I don't have a prescription. Can't you you just give some pills anyway?"

"No way."

"Why not? Don't you want my business?"

"I'd love your business, but you wouldn't believe the trouble I'd get into with the government if I did that."

I don't see how you can argue that the government places no more restrictions on birth control than on free speech.

Newspaper publishers are uniquely capable of publishing newspapers because they're the ones who have the big printing presses. Doctors are uniquely capable of providing birth control pills because the government has outlawed all other ways of obtaining them. Hear, hear.

Whether it's doctor-related or not, birth control should be accessible to everyone. Pills, IUDs, the latest dermal stuff, it should all be accessible to everyone.

So what is available? Condoms. So we got the men covered (no pun intended), how about us chicks, hm?

Oh no, that's different. Apparently because we can give birth, we should be regulated. Now, I'm no radical, but isn't it a bit silly that the guys get condoms and they're available everywhere, but if I should need the morning after pill...?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
As you pointed out, in a democratic environment there are many factors that guarantee an effective exercise of the right of free expression. Your observation is confirmed by History as well. Until the recent past, humans have found ways to overcome difficulties and exercize their right of free expression regardless of their financial or educational level. We have seen it happening therefore we know that willing humans can succeed in exercising this right even under the most unfavorable circumstances.I agree that certainly they can, but sometimes they cannot do it very meaningfully, or do it in a way that actually brings them any significant, concrete benefits. The same applies for practicing birth control, doesn't it?

Consider the (extreme) case of someone who does not know how to read or write, has no Internet access or knowledge of computers, has a limited understanding of civic matters (or medicine, for that matter), lives far away from a major population center or media market, and at any rate has no money. Sometimes she phones up the local AM radio station to rant, but the station manager refuses to put her calls on the air, because he doesn't like her, or her views.

How is this person supposed to exercise her free speech in ways that actually promote her opinions, change minds, give her a real voice and effectively bring about improvements to her life?

Now consider how the same person might be affected in her exercise of the birth control right. Is it truly impossible for her to exercise that right? If she ends up at the wrong doctor, she might never find out about IUDs and birth control pills. But IUDs and birth control pills are merely two (highly effective) tools for exercising the birth control right, just as a full-page ad in USA Today is only one (highly effective) platform for exercising the free speech right. Women and men have been taking what steps they can to regulate conception since long before the birth control pill was invented.

Conclusion: this unfortunate hypothetical woman would be highly unlikely to be able to exercise either the birth control right or the free speech right meaningfully; she could probably exercise them only in a crude and limited way (although, in fact, she might even get marginally better results in the birth control department than in the expressive speech department). Has her right to free speech been violated? Most people would agree it hasn't. Has her right to freedom of birth control been violated? You say yes; I ask how these two results can be reconciled with one another.
Originally posted by Glory
The fact that such limitations are placed on a woman's right to complete control of her own body is obescene. The idea that a woman has less control of her body because she is poor is utterly unacceptable. This is, I think, the biggest difference between us. I will not accept discrimination against women even on a small scale.Glory, some of these limitations are simply part of the nature of things. A person who is poor, for example, is going to have less control over her financial habits, her educational options, her choice of where to live or travel, her ability to avail herself of the best legal advice, her influence on society and a multitude of other things. I can only presume that you find each of these facts utterly intolerable as well. I agree that they are offensive, which is precisely why poverty is a social ill. But they aren’t generally limitations that are being directly placed on a person by anyone in particular (much less the government). This is why a practical inability to fully realize all of these theoretical freedoms (for example, due to poverty) is not ordinarily characterized as an infringement of rights. Not every unequal situation in the world constitutes, or arises from, illegal discrimination.
Originally posted by Glory
The right to free speech is limited when speech is injurious to others, libel and slander, or reckless, raising false alarms. Birth control poses no such risks to anyone other than the individual using it. There is no possibility of someone else being hurt by my using birth control. Ergo, there is no compelling reason for limitations to be placed on it.First, you're focusing on the wrong kind of limitation here. Ask yourself these questions: (1) if I submit a perfectly decent and non-injurious letter to the editors of the Western Mail, why doesn't my right to express myself in that way legally require them to print it; (2) if they don't print it, who is placing the limitation on me; and (3) is the answer to question #2 the same party or parties against whom my free speech right exists in the first place?
Originally posted by Glory
This is where your analogy breaks down. Publishing an article is not akin, in any way, to taking the pill. The pill is to exercising the right to birth control as speaking is to exercising the right to free speech. The rhythm method is a failure to exercise birth control. It is akin to self censorship. You have failed to understand just how basic this right is.There are a variety of platforms/tools for you to exercise your right to free speech. We could place them along a continuum, on a sliding scale in terms of their effectiveness: near the low end we would find shouting from a rooftop or wearing a T-shirt with a slogan. Near the high end we would find 30-second commercial advertising spots during the broadcast of the Super Bowl.

Likewise, there are a variety of platforms/tools for you to exercise your right to prevent unwanted conception. We could also arrange these along a spectrum in terms of their effectiveness. Near the low end we would find withdrawal or avoidance of sex during your fertile period. Near the high end we would find voluntary surgical sterilization. Arranged somewhere in the middle we would find condoms, diaphragms, sponges, birth control pills, IUDs and so forth.

When I write a political commentary that goes unpublished and unnoticed, it is a minimally effective means of exercising my free speech rights, particularly when contrasted with the results obtained by Rupert Murdoch when he decides to make a political statement. However, few people would conclude that my commentary constituted a "failure to exercise" my free speech right or "self-censorship". A person may achieve (let's say for the sake of argument) 75% effectiveness in preventing conception through use of the rhythm method and 98% effectiveness through use of Depo-Provera. Both tools appear on the hypothetical spectrum I alluded to above. However, the government will not guarantee that you find a willing doctor and successfully obtain Depo-Provera, and the nature of your right vis-à-vis the government in this respect does not formally require that the government do so.
Originally posted by Glory
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. My right to free speech does guarantee me the right literally be able to speak, write down or express my views, regardless of wether or not anyone else may be able to hear them. Birth control has but one purpose. You have made a false analogy. The third party must facilitate the exercise of the right in order for the right to be exercised at all. There is no such thing as ineffective birth control. It is either effective or it isn't control.No, Glory. As I already pointed out, when you use a diaphragm or purposely refrain from engaging in sex during ovulation, for example, you are also exercising your right to seek to prevent conception. The same right is being invoked; it is simply being exercised in a cruder and less effective fashion than it might theoretically have been.

I would not consider a method that had no effect whatsoever on the likelihood of conception actually to be a birth control method at all; to that extent I, would agree that there is no such thing as “ineffective” (in an absolute sense) birth control. However, it should be obvious that there are methods of birth control that are relatively ineffective when compared to other methods (recall, for example, our sliding scale above). (Actually, the same could be said about methods of doing anything.) You have misconstrued the meaning of "control" in the term "birth control right" if you really think it implies a guarantee, owed to you, of 100% successful implementation of your contraceptive strategies.
Originally posted by Glory
These are two entirely different subjects. The only thing they have in common is that the right to each of them is guaranteed by the law of the land. I don't need a doctor to help me speak. My daughter does need a doctor and the help of other professionals to help her speak. Guess what? The government has decided that she is entitled to that help as it is fundamental to her being allowed to exercise her right to free expression.I'm very glad to learn that your daughter is receiving this valuable assistance, but I am skeptical of your analysis of the situation in terms of free speech considerations. If your daughter lived in the United States, she might well be legally entitled to such treatment, but it would not be her First Amendment right to free expression that provided the basis for such entitlement.
Originally posted by Glory
I think I have already answered this question. It is far easier to list the one thing they do have in common than the myriad things they don't. They are both rights we enjoy. That is it. All the simmilarities you attribute to them, other than that one, are illusory.I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. My experience (which in a professional and educational sense has largely revolved around analyses of the origin, nature, consequences and interactions of rights and duties) has led me to one conclusion. Your experience has led you to another.
Originally posted by Glory
A tool that is being withheld. We do not have the right to any specific tool alone. We have the right to know about and utilize each and every exsiting tool.No, you have a right to be free from the government's placing unjustifiable burdens on your exercise of the right in the abstract. You do not have a guaranteed right to actually succeed in utilizing any existing tool, at least where private third parties are implicated in your use of it.
Originally posted by Glory
I am indeed exasperated. It is frustrating and infuriating to see people tolerating an intolerable situation. I can only infer from that tolerance an ambivilence toward the rights of women with regard to reproductive freedom. What else is there to infer?Well, since I am analogizing reproductive freedom to freedom of expression, you might infer that I am ambivalent toward freedom of expression. That would obviously be a unjustified inference, however, which should indicate to you that your inference of my ambivalence toward reproductive freedom is likewise unjustified. Or, on the same basis, you might logically infer that, because freedom of expression is generally accepted as a fundamental right of the greatest importance, my comparison of it to reproductive freedom here indicates that I probably view reproductive freedom in a similarly respectful light. The latter inference, incidentally, would be correct.
Originally posted by Glory
My using birth control affects me and me alone. How is it anyone else's business? The lamentable fact is that I need a doctor to get it and so, to some extent, it is his business as well but only as much as it may be the business of the pharmacist who supplies the actual pills or the supply company who provided it.None of whom, I note, are in all cases ethically or legally obligated to actually supply you with the pills (unless, arguably, they are simultaneously supplying them to other, similarly situated persons).
Originally posted by Glory
No one requires one to enter into any given field. However, once they decide to enter a field, they are obligated to fulfill all of the responsibilities of the practitioners in that field.Yes, but this precisely restates our disagreement. Your understanding of the where the responsibilities of the practitioners in that field begin and end - while by no means uncommon - seems to be at odds with both the prevailing legal understanding and the customary professional understanding (hence my discussion of what constitutes the practice of medicine, in which you did not concur either).
Originally posted by 69dodge
ceo_esq, let's forget about doctors for a moment. I walk into my neighborhood pharmacy and ask for birth control pills.

"Where's your prescription?"

"I don't have a prescription. Can't you you just give some pills anyway?"

"No way."

"Why not? Don't you want my business?"

"I'd love your business, but you wouldn't believe the trouble I'd get into with the government if I did that."

I don't see how you can argue that the government places no more restrictions on birth control than on free speech.

Newspaper publishers are uniquely capable of publishing newspapers because they're the ones who have the big printing presses. Doctors are uniquely capable of providing birth control pills because the government has outlawed all other ways of obtaining them.I have two observations on this. First, for the sake of accuracy, doctors are uniquely capable of providing birth control pills, but doctors are not uniquely capable of facilitating the freedom to seek to regulate conception, which is the essence of the birth control right. For example, in your hypothetical, you could have walked up to the pharmacist and asked for a package of condoms or a contraceptive sponge.

Second, it is worth noting that the restriction you've identified placed by the government on birth control is actually similar (in its nature, if not necessarily its actual consequences) to one of the restrictions identified by Glory placed by the government on free speech (i.e., the regulation of time, place and manner of exercise for reasons of public safety and order). The fact that you cannot lawfully express yourself by staging a sit-down in traffic, painting a slogan on the front of a courthouse or shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is more a reflection of the government's concern for public safety and order more than its attitude toward free expression. Likewise, the fact that you cannot lawfully obtain birth control pills (or any other prescription) except with a doctor’s cooperation is a reflection of the fact that that distributing powerful drugs without a prescription poses safety risks. The fact that such prohibitions technically burden your free speech or birth control options is incidental rather than intentional (which is one reason why both prohibitions are constitutionally permissible). Thus, in both cases we observe essentially the same type of government restriction, even if it is manifested in different ways.
Originally posted by buki
Apparently because we can give birth, we should be regulated. Now, I'm no radical, but isn't it a bit silly that the guys get condoms and they're available everywhere, but if I should need the morning after pill...?On one level, like so many other matters involving human reproductive activity, this does indeed seem silly. On the other hand, it results from our inherent biological natures. It's simply physically and scientifically less problematic to prevent contraception by intervening in the male's role in the process than by intervening in the female's role. It may appear cosmically unfair and unnecessary that this should be the case, but there you are. The situation isn't anyone's responsibility in particular (unless on the off chance that God exists). It's certainly not, by itself, a good policy argument for making birth control drugs available without prescription (unless they become so on the same basis as other drugs).

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I agree that certainly they can, but sometimes they cannot do it very meaningfully, or do it in a way that actually brings them any significant, concrete benefits. The same applies for practicing birth control, doesn't it?

No! There is no such thing as practicing birth control without any signifigant impact or concrete effect. You can't be little bit pregnant or a little bit protected. An absence of effective birth control is an absence of birth control. The absence of a publishing empire is not the absence of free speech.

Consider the (extreme) case of someone who does not know how to read or write, has no Internet access or knowledge of computers, has a limited understanding of civic matters (or medicine, for that matter), lives far away from a major population center or media market, and at any rate has no money. Sometimes she phones up the local AM radio station to rant, but the station manager refuses to put her calls on the air, because he doesn't like her, or her views.

The analogy doesn't hold because the goals of speaking and the goal of birth control are not in any way simmilar or comparable. If your hypothetical station manager drives to her house and gags her, then you might be able to compare her plight to that of women whose way to contrception is blocked.

How is this person supposed to exercise her free speech in ways that actually promote her opinions, change minds, give her a real voice and effectively bring about improvements to her life?

Promoting her oppinion is one effect of free speech. It is not synonomous with free speech itself. There are no comparable side effects to contraception which exeist independent of it's initial purpose.

Now consider how the same person might be affected in her exercise of the birth control right. Is it truly impossible for her to exercise that right?

In some cases, yes it is.

If she ends up at the wrong doctor, she might never find out about IUDs and birth control pills. But IUDs and birth control pills are merely two (highly effective) tools for exercising the birth control right, just as a full-page ad in USA Today is only one (highly effective) platform for exercising the free speech right. Women and men have been taking what steps they can to regulate conception since long before the birth control pill was invented.

I am rapidly comming to the conclusion that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Women were failing in their efforts to prevent conception before modern methods of birth control were invented. Allow me to enlighten you as I fear you are labouring under a misconception (pun intended) The rhythm method doesn't work. The pull out method doesn't work and is, in any event, not under the control of the female. Jumping up and down does nothing to prevent conception and neither does douching with Coca Cola. Ineffective birth control is not, by definition, birth control. If their ever was an implied standard included in a legal decision it is that we have not only the right to birth control, we have the right to sfae and effective birth control. Offering any thing else in place of effective and safe methods of contraception is tantamount to offering nothing.

Your statement implies that you assume that the only methods of birth control being denied are the pill and iud's. That is not true. There are other methods which are also being denied. Norplant, and Depo Provera injections spring to mind. You also seem to assume that we can all use any old method. We can't. Each of us reacts entirely differently to each method of contraception. Some bad reactions greatly impact our health. Some women have died from using the wrong birth control. We each need to be informed of all the methods of contrception so that we can make intelligent decisions.

Finally, putting burdens on women such as making them change doctors or drive to the next county in order to get what they are legally entitled to is discriminatory.

No, Glory. As I already pointed out, when you use a diaphragm or purposely refrain from engaging in sex during ovulation, for example, you are also exercising your right to seek to prevent conception. The same right is being invoked; it is simply being exercised in a cruder and less effective fashion than it might theoretically have been.

Diaphragms are available only by prescription. Withdrawl? I didn't buy that when my first boyfriend tried to sell it and I certainly know better now. Either you do not anything about this subject and therefore would do well to stop going on about things about which you are woefully ignorant or you are insulting the intelligence of every woman here. Anyone who advocates withdrawl knows just enough about conception to be dangerous.

Theory has nothing to do with it. Once again, all females have the right to safe and effective birthcontrol. Non prescription methods are ineffective and can be unsafe. Worse, they are under the control of someone else, the one person in the equation who will not become pregnant. That is not control over ourselves.

I would not consider a method that had no effect whatsoever on the likelihood of conception actually to be a birth control method at all; to that extent I, would agree that there is no such thing as “ineffective” (in an absolute sense) birth control. However, it should be obvious that there are methods of birth control that are relatively ineffective when compared to other methods (recall, for example, our sliding scale above).

Your sliding scale consists of methods that work, which are prescriotion only items, and methods that don't work. There is precious little grey area here, so little as to be nonexistent in any practical sense. Women must not be forced to play reproductive russian roulette.


(Actually, the same could be said about methods of doing anything.) You have misconstrued the meaning of "control" in the term "birth control right" if you really think it implies a guarantee, owed to you, of 100% successful implementation of your contraceptive strategies.

No it implies an obligation to get as close to 100 % as possible. It implies the obligation to use the best method available. We are talking about a practical action, not an ideal one. The impossibility of perfection does not relieve anyone of a responsibility to do one's best for their clients or their patients or their students nor does it relieve them of the responsibility to adhere to a standard.

My experience (which in a professional and educational sense has largely revolved around analyses of the origin, nature, consequences and interactions of rights and duties) has led me to one conclusion. Your experience has led you to another.
No, you have a right to be free from the government's placing unjustifiable burdens on your exercise of the right in the abstract. You do not have a guaranteed right to actually succeed in utilizing any existing tool, at least where private third parties are implicated in your use of it.

In almost all aspects of life you, are correct. Doctors are special cases. They take on responsibilites and obligations that the rest of don't have. Just as police officers do. The average citizen is not obligated to intervene when they are aware of crime being committed. Cops are obligated to intervene and get involved. They aren't "normal citizens". Doctors aren't either.

Well, since I am analogizing reproductive freedom to freedom of expression, you might infer that I am ambivalent toward freedom of expression. That would obviously be a unjustified inference, however, which should indicate to you that your inference of my ambivalence toward reproductive freedom is likewise unjustified. Or, on the same basis, you might logically infer that, because freedom of expression is generally accepted as a fundamental right of the greatest importance, my comparison of it to reproductive freedom here indicates that I probably view reproductive freedom in a similarly respectful light. The latter inference, incidentally, would be correct.[/b]

I no longer think you are ambivalent about the birth control right. I think you are ignorant. I think you have no idea about the realities of birth control and the impact it has had on the lives of women. Anyone who thinks that withdrawl is, by any stretch of the imagination, birth control is too ignorant to engage in intelligent discourse on the subject. You are actually demonstrating the very ignorance that leads to problems for women and girls who have the misfortune to fall into the hands of a doctor who believes that contrception is sinful.

None of whom, I note, are in all cases ethically or legally obligated to actually supply you with the pills (unless, arguably, they are simultaneously supplying them to other, similarly situated persons).

They are obligated to carry out the doctor's instructions. Each patient and each prescription is individual and isolated. What one patient is prescribed has no bearing on what another may be prescibed. The pharmacist cannot claim that since he did not give the pill to Mrs. Henry he does not have to give it to Miss Charles. He has discretion over the prescriptions. All he does is dispense.

Yes, but this precisely restates our disagreement. Your understanding of the where the responsibilities of the practitioners in that field begin and end - while by no means uncommon - seems to be at odds with both the prevailing legal understanding and the customary professional understanding (hence my discussion of what constitutes the practice of medicine, in which you did not concur either).

The law is wrong. I know what it says. It allows doctors to put their religion ahead of their patient's needs. This is an intolerable sitiation which other's and I are trying to change.

I have two observations on this. First, for the sake of accuracy, doctors are uniquely capable of providing birth control pills, but doctors are not uniquely capable of facilitating the freedom to seek to regulate conception, which is the essence of the birth control right. For example, in your hypothetical, you could have walked up to the pharmacist and asked for a package of condoms or a contraceptive sponge.

Condoms are not under the strict control of the party who may become pregnant.

Sponges don't work nearly as well as prescription methods and it is no longer available. I have heard rumours that it may return to drugstores but so far that is all they are, rumours.

By limiting the types of contraception available to women you place our health at risk. We are not cars. You can't put any old part in expect things to go smoothly.

Glory

[69dodge]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The situation isn't anyone's responsibility in particularThat women need the pill isn't anyone's fault. That they can't get it as easily as they could is someone's fault.It's certainly not, by itself, a good policy argument for making birth control drugs available without prescription (unless they become so on the same basis as other drugs).I'm not sure what you mean by "the same basis as other drugs." Other drugs are unavailable without a prescription, but it is understood that doctors ought to prescribe them when they are indicated. You are trying to argue that birth control pills should be unavailable without a prescription, but that doctors should have no obligation ever to prescribe them. This, I gather, is in fact the current practical situation, but that doesn't mean it's a good situation or one that must continue.

Whether the practical situation changes because of a court decision or because the law is changed legislatively or even because the Constitution is amended doesn't really matter to me, although I realize that the three are very different from a legal perspective. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have to care about that. :)

I'm not sure I understand your goal in this thread. Are you trying to present a legal argument showing that, under current law, the pill is a prescription drug, and that, under current law, doctors have no obligation to prescribe it? And that, further, the current law is Constitutional? Or are you, rather, trying to present a (necessarily non-legal) argument explaining why you like the current law; why, in your opinion, its benefits outweigh its costs; why, if Congress asked you today whether it would be a good idea to change the law, you'd say, "No, keep it just the way it is"?

I think the position of the non-lawyers here is basically this: it's currently too hard for women to get the pill when they want it. It should be easier. We don't care why, legally speaking, this is currently the situation or how, legally speaking, it gets changed. We just want it changed.

A lawyer might see this as missing the point. But it isn't missing the point; it is our point.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I agree that certainly they can, but sometimes they cannot do it very meaningfully, or do it in a way that actually brings them any significant, concrete benefits. The same applies for practicing birth control, doesn't it?

No Sir it doesn't! :)

Consider the (extreme) case of someone who does not know how to read or write, has no Internet access or knowledge of computers, has a limited understanding of civic matters (or medicine, for that matter), lives far away from a major population center or media market, and at any rate has no money. Sometimes she phones up the local AM radio station to rant, but the station manager refuses to put her calls on the air, because he doesn't like her, or her views.

The case is not that extreme but you have given the answer yourself regarding where the difference between free speech and birth control lies.

By the moment this woman picks up the phone to rant it means that she knows what she has to do regardless if she will succeed!

It's like the hikers. Thye see the top of the mountain, they know where they want to go this doesn't mean that they will succeed in arriving at the top.

When comparing birth control with free speech it's knowledge that makes the difference and not the doubtful results that someone might have that make them similar :)

I repeat that regardless if birth control or a pregnancy are medical conditions both of them constitute scientific knowledge of specialized nature, knowledge that belongs to a specific group of people--the doctors.

However educated or well informed, or rich you might be you need a doctor when it comes to a decision you have to make about your health.

How is this person supposed to exercise her free speech in ways that actually promote her opinions, change minds, give her a real voice and effectively bring about improvements to her life?

As I replied above, if she knows that she has the right, she will find a way as our ancestors. Both of us are not born in countries that have been Democracies since the day they were established... in fact my Greek grandmother when she was at my age she didn't have the right to vote. Women in Greece started voting in 1956 although we have a Constitution since 1842 :)

Now consider how the same person might be affected in her exercise of the birth control right. Is it truly impossible for her to exercise that right? If she ends up at the wrong doctor, she might never find out about IUDs and birth control pills. But IUDs and birth control pills are merely two (highly effective) tools for exercising the birth control right, just as a full-page ad in USA Today is only one (highly effective) platform for exercising the free speech right. Women and men have been taking what steps they can to regulate conception since long before the birth control pill was invented.

You see it yourself, when it comes to a specialized scientific knowledge, if we are not experts we can only speculate. You suggest the condoms or the sponge. I don't wish to be ...descriptive but a sponge can cause many allergies to the male partner and as for the condom, I don't know many married men in rural areas that are willing to use it with their wives. What is left? Oh the practice that is known since the Roman Era (although Romans had condoms) but this is the less safe of all. You see, I am speculating too. Why shall I do that is there is a doctor that can provide me with all the information I need?

Has her right to free speech been violated? Most people would agree it hasn't. [quote]

As long as there are other options that she is aware of them her right is not violated.

[quote]Has her right to freedom of birth control been violated? You say yes;
I ask how these two results can be reconciled with one another.

There are always some conditions under which a right is exercised. Right? If some of the conditions are violated the right cannot be exercised. If you block the access to knowledge that is a prerequisite when it comes to Medicine, the right of birth control cannot be exercised.

I don't consider birth control a right per se. What I consider a right is the free access to scientific knowledge that only specialized scientists can provide.

I agree with you, I want that this knowledge and its weapons (drugs) stay in the hands of the doctors but I want to have unlimited access to their knowledge and their weapons.I want to have the right to visit a doctor without having to consider his religious beliefs because they are irrelevant to Medicine.

ceo_esq I am not ashamed to admit that I am a person who has strong religious beliefs and my moral code is dictated by religion. Also, the word sin is part of my vocabulary although I could use a more…”sic” term “hybris” that could show-off my classical education, I choose to use the word sin instead in order to underline where my morality springs from therefore, I have a tremendous respect for other people's beliefs.

Doctors have their right to have their beliefs. It's their right not to prescribe birth control if that contradicts their religious beliefs but it's not their right to withhold scientific information.

After all it's not theirs.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
No! There is no such thing as practicing birth control without any signifigant impact or concrete effect. You can't be little bit pregnant or a little bit protected. An absence of effective birth control is an absence of birth control.
…
I am rapidly comming to the conclusion that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Women were failing in their efforts to prevent conception before modern methods of birth control were invented. Allow me to enlighten you as I fear you are labouring under a misconception (pun intended) The rhythm method doesn't work. The pull out method doesn't work and is, in any event, not under the control of the female. Jumping up and down does nothing to prevent conception and neither does douching with Coca Cola. Ineffective birth control is not, by definition, birth control.
…
I no longer think you are ambivalent about the birth control right. I think you are ignorant. I think you have no idea about the realities of birth control and the impact it has had on the lives of women. Anyone who thinks that withdrawl is, by any stretch of the imagination, birth control is too ignorant to engage in intelligent discourse on the subject. You are actually demonstrating the very ignorance that leads to problems for women and girls who have the misfortune to fall into the hands of a doctor who believes that contrception is sinful.I hardly suggested that all methods of contraception not requiring the intervention of a physician or surgeon are necessarily greatly effective, nor that they are right for any particular person. Nevertheless, I dispute for the sake of accuracy your repeated assertions that non-prescription methods of contraception are without effectiveness and that anything less than the greatest attainable degree of effectiveness does not constitute birth control (or, as Planned Parenthood likes to say, "fertility management").

With respect to the latter point, I note that the good folks (and steadfast birth control advocates) over at Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/cchoices.html) disagree with you. With the help of their website, and for my own edification as much as anyone else's, I've managed to compile that "sliding scale" to which I alluded earlier. (I've omitted methods for which no statistical information was available.) The number following the description of the contraceptive method/treatment corresponds to its rated effectiveness in preventing pregnancy under normal conditions.

Continuous abstinence 100%
"Outercourse" nearly 100%
Withdrawal w/condom nearly 100%
Norplant 99.5%
Sterilization 99.5 - 99.9%
IUDs 99.2 - 99.9%
Depo-Provera 99 - 99.7%
Lunelle 99+%
Continuous breastfeeding up to 98% for 6 mos. after childbirth
Progestin-only pills 95 - 99.9%
The Pill 92 - 99.97%
Condom 85 - 98%
Diaphragm 84 - 94%
Cervical cap (never having had a child) 84 - 94%
Female condom 79 - 95%
"Fertility awareness methods" 75 - 99%
Withdrawal alone 75 - 96%
Morning-after pill 75 - 89%
Spermicide 71 - 85%
Cervical cap (having had a child) 68 - 74%

Kindly spare me your objections to the inclusion of any of these things within the definition of "birth control", because that is precisely how each and every one of them is characterized by Planned Parenthood. I'm merely taking a cue from them.

As the Planned Parenthood website indicates, each of these methods has its pros and cons, and I personally would favor prescription methods, circumstances permitting. However, I note that despite your suggestion that the rhythm method and withdrawal simply "don't work", you can see for yourself that not only do they make it onto the list, but they manage to avoid coming in at the very bottom.
Originally posted by Glory
If their ever was an implied standard included in a legal decision it is that we have not only the right to birth control, we have the right to sfae and effective birth control. If you would clarify for me the particular legal decision to which you are referring, it would make it easier for me to explain to you what it actually means.

I realize that I am approaching this primarily from the perspective of U.S. jurisprudence, but one does not have a right of guaranteed access to birth control tools of any sort. One has a right to privacy that prevents the government from passing laws that unreasonably interfere with one's contraceptive practices.
Originally posted by Glory
If your hypothetical station manager drives to her house and gags her, then you might be able to compare her plight to that of women whose way to contrception is blocked.In fairness, let's rather compare that ludicrous scenario to one in which the physician - or better yet, the law enforcement officer - drives to the patient's house and physically obstructs her from practicing birth control.
Originally posted by Glory
Promoting her oppinion is one effect of free speech. It is not synonomous with free speech itself. There are no comparable side effects to contraception which exeist independent of it's initial purpose.Glory, the considerations I listed earlier do, in large part, form the purpose of legal protections of free speech.

"The purpose of the free-speech clause and of its ... corollary the right of association is to protect the market in ideas, broadly understood as the public expression of ideas, narratives, concepts, imagery, opinions - scientific, political, or aesthetic - to an audience whom the speaker seeks to inform, edify, or entertain." Swank v. Smart, 898 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1990). The participation of the speaker in the marketplace of ideas is the direct goal of legally protected speech just as much as preventing pregnancy is the direct goal of contraception. It is not an incidental side effect. Yet, as we have seen, a person can be substantially, even radically cut off from effective participation in that public marketplace without it constituting a violation of the free speech right, because the right to freely "seek to inform, edify or entertain" the intended audience through speech is not a practical guarantee (enforced through obligations of the government or any private party) of ensured access to the best technically available means to reach the goal.
Originally posted by Glory
Your statement implies that you assume that the only methods of birth control being denied are the pill and iud's. That is not true. There are other methods which are also being denied. Norplant, and Depo Provera injections spring to mind. You also seem to assume that we can all use any old method. We can't. Each of us reacts entirely differently to each method of contraception. Some bad reactions greatly impact our health.If you think that my argumentation relies on the assumptions you are imputing here, then you have not understood it. These facts do not change the underlying analysis one whit.
Originally posted by Glory
Diaphragms are available only by prescription.I realize that. I misspoke. For "diaphragm", substitute any OTC method or treatment.
Originally posted by Glory
Withdrawl? I didn't buy that when my first boyfriend tried to sell it and I certainly know better now. Either you do not anything about this subject and therefore would do well to stop going on about things about which you are woefully ignorant or you are insulting the intelligence of every woman here. Anyone who advocates withdrawl knows just enough about conception to be dangerous.I hardly advocated withdrawal. I merely cited it as an example of a contraceptive method not requiring medical intervention. I am beginning to suspect that you have not been reading any of this carefully.
Originally posted by Glory
Your sliding scale consists of methods that work, which are prescriotion only items, and methods that don't work.Once again, Planned Parenthood and I disagree with you on this point, strictly speaking. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions.
Originally posted by Glory
In almost all aspects of life you, are correct. Doctors are special cases. They take on responsibilites and obligations that the rest of don't have. Just as police officers do. The average citizen is not obligated to intervene when they are aware of crime being committed. Cops are obligated to intervene and get involved. They aren't "normal citizens". Doctors aren't either.I have already pointed out to you that a doctor’s professional responsibilities do not, and never have, included an obligation to do what you are suggesting here.

I submit that there are several reasons for this; one is the fact that prescribing contraception, at least for the sole purpose of convenience in preventing unwanted pregnancy, has never been established on ethical or medical grounds as being a natural part of basic medical care, and I highly doubt it will be so established in this thread.

A second reason is the fact that an enlightened civilization recognizes that no one ought to be forced to act in a manner that would entail a grave violation of his or her conscience. Your assumption that doctors and police officers waive this right merely by acceding to their respective professions is, simply put, neither warranted nor correct. By the way, have you considered for even a moment that if the situation changed such that your supposition were true, it would likely result in a significant net decrease in the availability of medical services, especially to poor women? Faced with the prospect of sacrificing their traditionally guaranteed freedom of conscience, many healthcare providers would cease to exercise their professions or specialties, or else never enter them in the first place. Entire hospital departments would shut down.
Originally posted by Glory
They are obligated to carry out the doctor's instructions. Each patient and each prescription is individual and isolated. What one patient is prescribed has no bearing on what another may be prescibed. The pharmacist cannot claim that since he did not give the pill to Mrs. Henry he does not have to give it to Miss Charles. He has discretion over the prescriptions. All he does is dispense.First, I assume you meant to say that the pharmacist has no discretion over the prescriptions. Second, the right of pharmacists to refuse for reasons of conscience to dispense or supply any pharmaceutical product has generally always been enshrined in the customs of the profession, the ethical codes applicable thereto, and applicable legislation (although there have been some recent attacks on this protection). Your remark suggests that you were not aware of this.
Originally posted by Glory
The law is wrong. I know what it says. It allows doctors to put their religion ahead of their patient's needs. This is an intolerable sitiation which other's and I are trying to change.I strongly suspect that the change you are advocating (which would constitute a complete revision of the culture's traditional understanding of both the right to freedom of conscience and the nature of the doctor-patient relationship), if universally implemented, would violate the U.S. Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and various other human rights legislation and jurisprudence. You are perfectly entitled to press for amendments to those documents, of course, but I hope you understand first why this is the case.

In terms of legislation, what compromises would you propose in order to accommodate (if at all) the fundamental rights of conscientious objectors in such cases?

[Glory]

The only thing I wish to add is one caveat regarding withdrawl as birth control. One of the most important aspects of birth control as we know it today is that we have methods which are entirely under the control, important word that, of the female. Withdrawl, like condoms, is under the control of the man. This does not enable women to control conception. As such, it doesn't count as an option for women regardless of it's rate of effectiveness or ineffectiveness as the case may be.

Also, would you drive on tires which don't blow out 76% of the time?

You also neglected to mention that the high numbers on your scale represent perfect use of each method while the low numbers reflect average use. As fallible humans can we count on perfection?

I am done with this. I no longer wish to engage in a game of I'm right , you're wrong and vice versa. My issue is with the law and with those who believe that doctors religious beliefs trump the patient's rights.

Questions are rhetorical. I will not respond to you on this issue again.

Thanks for making me work hard on this one.

Glory

[Glory]

I was wrong. On reflection, another of your questions nedds answering.

I strongly suspect that the change you are advocating (which would constitute a complete revision of the culture's traditional understanding of both the right to freedom of conscience and the nature of the doctor-patient relationship), if universally implemented, would violate the U.S. Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and various other human rights legislation and jurisprudence. You are perfectly entitled to press for amendments to those documents, of course, but I hope you understand first why this is the case.

In terms of legislation, what compromises would you propose in order to accommodate (if at all) the fundamental rights of conscientious objectors in such cases?

My utter lack of legal training and expertise is the primary reason that I do not engage in law making. I don't propose any compromise. I propose that women no longer be subjugated and marginalized by those who refuse to admitt that it is happening. I am confident that a law could be written that accomplishes that and that a huge part of that law will deal with birth control and the barriers in place between it and the women who need it.

I am a thinking person however and I know a nonsequitor when I see one. I am advocating that Catholics be held to simmilar standards as Jehova's Witnesses and Christian scientists. No practicing member of either of these to religions would ever be admitted to medical school as their religious beliefs preclude their practicing medicine as we know it.

How does this affect conscientious objectors? What are they objecting to? Whose human rights are being violated and what does Europe have to do with legislation which affects only people in the US? Or are you assuming that I wish to change laws on a global scale? Do you assume that if doctors are forced to be doctors first and catholics second that religion would no longer be grounds for any decision? You keep making comparisons that don't fit.

Glory

[Cleopatra]

What profession do the authors of the articles in the site of "Planned Parenthood" that ceo_esq provided exercise?

Are they doctors, perchance?

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I have already pointed out to you that a doctor’s professional responsibilities do not, and never have, included an obligation to do what you are suggesting here.

You can keep saying it and I can keep refuting it. What good does it do?

I submit that there are several reasons for this; one is the fact that prescribing contraception, at least for the sole purpose of convenience in preventing unwanted pregnancy, has never been established on ethical or medical grounds as being a natural part of basic medical care, and I highly doubt it will be so established in this thread.

Only a man could say this. It most certainly is a part of the basic care of millions of patients. It doesn't relate to merely keeping us alive, true. There is more to medical care than merely staying alive and keeping parts in working order. Or are you prepared to claim that mental health has no bearing on the issue? The last time I looked, psychiatry was a medical specialty so I clearly doctors are concerned with that.

A second reason is the fact that an enlightened civilization recognizes that no one ought to be forced to act in a manner that would entail a grave violation of his or her conscience. Your assumption that doctors and police officers waive this right merely by acceding to their respective professions is, simply put, neither warranted nor correct. By the way, have you considered for even a moment that if the situation changed such that your supposition were true, it would likely result in a significant net decrease in the availability of medical services, especially to poor women? Faced with the prospect of sacrificing their traditionally guaranteed freedom of conscience, many healthcare providers would cease to exercise their professions or specialties, or else never enter them in the first place. Entire hospital departments would shut down.

At what point does following ones conscience preclude fulfilling the desires and needs of the patient because of one's own religious beliefs? At what point has it ever been ethical to withhold information from patients? Jehova's wittnesses are not permitted to become surgeons because of one of their beliefs.
Why the special dispensation for Catholics who have one belief which interferes with their ability to provide that which enables women to mange their fertility.

First, I assume you meant to say that the pharmacist has no discretion over the prescriptions.

Yes, sorry about that.

Second, the right of pharmacists to refuse for reasons of conscience to dispense or supply any pharmaceutical product has generally always been enshrined in the customs of the profession, the ethical codes applicable thereto, and applicable legislation (although there have been some recent attacks on this protection). Your remark suggests that you were not aware of this.

I was unaware and I find it appalling for reasons I am sure you can imagine.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What profession do the authors of the articles in the site of "Planned Parenthood" that ceo_esq provided exercise?

Are they doctors, perchance?

Good point.

Glory

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Glory


Good point.

Glory

This is the only point I am afraid,since birth control constitutes specialized knowledge that can be provided only by trained scientists that are called doctors.

Also, after re-reading the whole thread I don't know how you and ceo_esq started discussing about legislation changes.

The relationship between doctors and patients are covered but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I found an excellent article about that in the British Medical Journal ( BMJ) (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7120/7120e2.htm#2-ref1)

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


This is the only point I am afraid,since birth control constitutes specialized knowledge that can be provided only by trained scientists that are called doctors.

Also, after re-reading the whole thread I don't know how you and ceo_esq started discussing about legislation changes.

The relationship between doctors and patients are covered but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I found an excellent article about that in the British Medical Journal ( BMJ) (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7120/7120e2.htm#2-ref1)

I am not sure either. I think it just evolved from the fact that I think doctors have an obligation and the law does not hold them to this obligation as well as I think it should. When confronted with the reality of the law, although I am not sure exactly what that is right now, I can only say that it is wrong. It' isn't unique. Ther is no shortage of bad legislation out there.

Honestly, I feel as though Ceo-esq clouded the issue with talk of legalities, though I doubt it was intentional. It's just that there is no meaningful comparison between free speech rights and patients rights. Also, he pointed out something that has bugged me for quite some time. The privacy decision was a bad one. This is only peripherally a privacy issue. The Supreme Court shoud have simply declared that no one has uitimate control of woman's body but the individual her self. Hanging reproductive control rights on privacy is bull ***** as one needs the particpation of another party to exercise those rights. It was a terrible decision with a good result.

Glory

[ceo_esq]

Hope everyone had a good weekend. I'm falling a little behind in this discussion so I'll try to catch up.
Originally posted by Glory
The only thing I wish to add is one caveat regarding withdrawl as birth control. One of the most important aspects of birth control as we know it today is that we have methods which are entirely under the control, important word that, of the female. Withdrawl, like condoms, is under the control of the man. This does not enable women to control conception. As such, it doesn't count as an option for women regardless of it's rate of effectiveness or ineffectiveness as the case may be.I see your point, although Planned Parenthood (presumably addressing itself to women) does present them as being among “Your Contraceptive Choices”. I suppose the rationale for this is that, for couples who use condoms or practice withdrawal, the control over those procedures is shared to the extent that the woman rightfully has the power to insist on their use. No doubt a man whose partner obliges him to wear condoms would reasonably take exception to your suggestion that the decision is entirely under his control.
Originally posted by Glory
Also, would you drive on tires which don't blow out 76% of the time? Certainly not, if a more reliable alternative was, as a practical matter, available to me. On the other hand, I realize that I have no absolute right, as against any other person, to acquire the set of tires I want.
Originally posted by Glory
You also neglected to mention that the high numbers on your scale represent perfect use of each method while the low numbers reflect average use. As fallible humans can we count on perfection?For this very reason I intentionally arranged the items on the scale according to the lower end of the estimates rather than the higher end, in order to present a fairer picture.
Originally posted by Glory
My issue is with the law and with those who believe that doctors religious beliefs trump the patient's rights.I think that framing this in terms of “religious beliefs” versus “rights” is misleading. In fact, it’s more a case of one fundamental right (freedom of conscience) versus another one (freedom to manage fertility). And in fact, since the fertility right is more a limitation on the government’s power than a positive obligation on any party, there should arguably not be any conflict because the patient’s right never imposed this specific correlate duty on the doctor to begin with.
Originally posted by Glory
I am a thinking person however and I know a nonsequitor when I see one. I am advocating that Catholics be held to simmilar standards as Jehova's Witnesses and Christian scientists. No practicing member of either of these to religions would ever be admitted to medical school as their religious beliefs preclude their practicing medicine as we know it. You may have hit the nail on the head here, and the key phrase is “practicing medicine as we know it”. The virtually unbroken and prevailing conventional, historical, legal and professional understanding is that a doctor’s right to decline, for reasons of conscience, to prescribe purely contraceptive treatments is not incompatible with the practice of medicine. I understand your view of medicine, and recognize that the people who agree with you undoubtedly include some medical doctors, but that doesn’t make it “medicine as we know it”. It’s simply medicine as it might have been widely understood if the combination of science and ethics we call medical practice had evolved differently. What you are proposing is a radical departure from the established understanding of both medicine and individual rights.
Originally posted by Glory
How does this affect conscientious objectors? What are they objecting to? Whose human rights are being violated and what does Europe have to do with legislation which affects only people in the US? Or are you assuming that I wish to change laws on a global scale? The conscientious objectors in this instance are the physicians who object, for reasons of conscience, to participating in certain methods of birth control. The human rights to which I was referring are the rights of the individual to freedom of conscience, which are protected under the Constitution and other human rights instruments. I mentioned European legislation because this discussion is also of relevance to those outside the United States, and in order to point out the universality of freedom-of-conscience protections in the civilized world. I do assume that you believe your arguments have relevance on a global scale. No?
Originally posted by Cleopatra
What profession do the authors of the articles in the site of "Planned Parenthood" that ceo_esq provided exercise?

Are they doctors, perchance? :)

Cleopatra, let's assume for the sake of argument that they are. It really doesn't have any bearing on what I've said here. I've already concurred in the notion that prescription treatments should only be undertaken by a doctor; I contested the notion that nontherapeutic birth control falls within the normal understanding of the requirements of basic medical practice. I might expect an article about the medical aspects of assisted suicide to be written by a physician, but I would not conclude, from that sole fact, that any physician is obligated to become involved in such matters by virtue of his profession.
Originally posted by Glory
You can keep saying it [that a doctor’s professional responsibilities do not, and never have, included an obligation to do what I am suggesting here] and I can keep refuting it. What good does it do? For the moment, not much good, but only because you keep refuting it only in the sense of contradicting it, not in the sense of demonstrating the falsity of the proposition. You haven’t established that your interpretation of a physician’s professional responsibilities has ever enjoyed widespread acceptance in the canons of medical ethics or of law. I’ve cited a number of reasons why this is the case.
Originally posted by Glory
The last time I looked, psychiatry was a medical specialty so I clearly doctors are concerned with that. Psychiatry is a medical specialty precisely because it deals with diagnosing and treating diseases and disorders that affect the mind. One thing that distinguishes a psychiatrist from a psychologist is the fact that the psychiatrist is specifically trained to diagnose and treat underlying physiological conditions that may be producing or aggravating mental symptoms in the patient. This is entirely consistent with my general conception of medical practice as a whole.
Originally posted by Glory
I am not sure either. I think it just evolved from the fact that I think doctors have an obligation and the law does not hold them to this obligation as well as I think it should. When confronted with the reality of the law, although I am not sure exactly what that is right now, I can only say that it is wrong. It' isn't unique. Ther is no shortage of bad legislation out there. There’s no shortage of individual bad laws, I agree. However, the legal understanding of certain rights is so fundamental to and so pervasive in the society’s collective understanding of justice that one hesitates simply to say “the law’s wrong and it’s always been wrong” lightly. The limitations of individual liberties (in that they do not generally place affirmative obligations on third parties) and the understanding of freedom of conscience I’ve outlined are so ingrained in generally accepted notions of justice that radically modifying them in the manner you advocate would be a lot different than repealing a bad tax.
Originally posted by Glory
The privacy decision was a bad one. This is only peripherally a privacy issue. The Supreme Court shoud have simply declared that no one has uitimate control of woman's body but the individual her self. Hanging reproductive control rights on privacy is bull ***** as one needs the particpation of another party to exercise those rights. It was a terrible decision with a good result. Yet the Supreme Court had to relate it back to the Constitution somehow. The Constitution doesn't provide a basis for the right you've formulated (and remember, the Constitution is generally limited to direct rights of the individual against the government).

All of which raises the ultimate question: if a person has an absolute entitlement to oblige third parties to take affirmative steps to facilitate the realization of her freedom to manage fertility, where does that entitlement come from? You keep insisting that the right (as you’ve defined it) exists, but you haven’t traced its provenance. It’s not in the Constitution (and it would, in all likelihood tread on the constitutional rights of the third parties). It’s not found in human rights instruments or jurisprudence. It doesn't show up, so far as I am aware, in the traditional canons of ethics. All of this suggests that it arises (if at all) from a moral vision that is private rather than universal - which is a little ironic, since you have been criticizing doctors who don’t condone contraception precisely because they are giving precedence to a narrow, privately held moral understanding.

I don't dislike your moral understanding of this issue, Glory. I think its intentions are courageous and humane. But we both agree that it does not correspond to the current situation, so one of two things must be true: either the right you are seeking exists somehow but is not being respected, or else you are mistaken about its existence (or at least its boundaries). The fact that it is quite at odds with what we know about the nature of other rights in general, and so problematic in its implementation, inclines me toward the latter conclusion.

None of this detracts from the dignity and essential importance of the freedom to manage one's fertility. It just appears that, like many equally fundamental freedoms (such as freedom of speech), it is actually somewhat more limited, theoretical, and circumscribed by other people's rights than an individual might wish for it to be. That's why I support the establishment of practical systems to ensure access to lawfully available contraception, without simultaneously compromising a physician's right of conscientious refusal. Helping people to get the most out of their rights is different from presuming arbitrarily to redefine those rights to suit them, which is a distinction that has been of central importance to my professional career.
Originally posted by 69dodge
I'm not sure I understand your goal in this thread. Are you trying to present a legal argument showing that, under current law, the pill is a prescription drug, and that, under current law, doctors have no obligation to prescribe it? And that, further, the current law is Constitutional? Or are you, rather, trying to present a (necessarily non-legal) argument explaining why you like the current law; why, in your opinion, its benefits outweigh its costs; why, if Congress asked you today whether it would be a good idea to change the law, you'd say, "No, keep it just the way it is"?I have been keeping your very valid comment in the back of my mind for a while, 69dodge. Hopefully the answers to your questions are a little more self-evident now that the discussion has progressed further. There is little question in my mind that a system that respects an individual doctor's decision, for private conscientious reasons, to refuse to become involved in prescription contraceptive treatments (or in euthanasia, abortion, breast implants, criminal executions or what have you) is permitted under the Constitution. I would go so far as to say it is likely required by the Constitution. While, as I have noted, it is surely possible to provide a much better framework than the existing one for promoting access to birth control, it would be extremely problematic, legally and ethically, simply to remove a physician's right of conscientious objection. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, on a strictly practical level I would also expect Glory’s solution to cause a decrease in the overall availability of healthcare, which would undoubtedly have a disproportionately adverse impact on poor people. Anticipating that result, I might have some moral qualms about advising Congress to change the law in that particular way.

[Cleopatra]

ceo_esq

First of all, please take your time with the answers . I already feel terrible because we play "all against one" here, I don't like the thought that you feel obliged to respond within a timeframe. I have to tell you that my business associate who follows this discussion wonders how perfect your legal documents must be if you compose such eloquent posts just for the pleasure of the debate :)

We have to disagree.

For one more time you avoid to address the main point I am afraid.


Cleopatra, let's assume for the sake of argument that they are. It really doesn't have any bearing on what I've said here.

What do you mean? Is there any possibility that the medical information in this site is provided by lawyers or mathematicians for example?


I've already concurred in the notion that prescription treatments should only be undertaken by a doctor; I contested the notion that nontherapeutic birth control falls within the normal understanding of the requirements of basic medical practice.

I am sorry to tell you that but it's completely irrelevant!!

Theurapeutic or not birth control constitutes scientific knowledge that can be distributed only by doctors. The rest of the discussion you have with Glory is irrelevant or it addresses peripheral issues of the matter.So, if you aknowledge that --the obvious-- then the rest of your argumentation falls.

I might expect an article about the medical aspects of assisted suicide to be written by a physician, but I would not conclude, from that sole fact, that any physician is obligated to become involved in such matters by virtue of his profession.


However blunt I might sound, if somebody wants to die he can do it whether the physician assists him or not, if he wants to get informed about the scientific issue of birth control only a specialized doctor can help him.

[Glory]

Ceo-esq,

I am going to have to pull out of this one. I just don't have the enrgy to fight this here where the prize is bragging rights rather than actual change.

Frankly, when I look for the origin of the right to reproductive freedom I turn to a different doccument. I believe it falls under the auspices of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I know that the supreme court cannot cite that document as a basis for their decisions but I can. The constitution protects our control over our bodies in various round about ways. For instance we have to give consent to anyone who wishes to perform an invasive procedure. We are free from unreasonable search and seizure and there are numerous decisions which indicate that our persons are as protected as our homes. No one can force birth control on us. The consitution does not say in so many words that our bodies are ours alone to control, probably because the autrhors never foresaw a need to include so basic a right. The right is implied throughout the document. Without such control, we clearly are not free. The constitution doesn't specifically guarantee our right to a breathable atmosphere either yet I doubt anyone would try to argue that that right doesn't exist.

Doctors right of conscience is far from absolute. There are many restrictions on it such as their obligation to treat anyone who needs to be treated regardless of wether or not they believe the person should be allowed to live. If a child raper and killer is brought to a doctor, the doctor must treat him regardless of his feelings about him.

We can go on and on over this. The underlying disagreement remains unchaged. The extent of doctors' obligations.

Farewell,

Glory

[Cleopatra]

Rats!!!!

Posts are missing from this thread especially our last posts that they were the most essential and where we did the comparison between the freedom of Press and the one's freedon to place his religious beliefs over his work--an idea suggested by ceo_esq and refuted by moi.

BTW ceo_esq in mu.nu I claimed that I won this argument, I have to let you know since you don't post there and you couldn't respond to that.

Anyway I remember very well what I have posted and I wanted to post this article in support of my views.I made the distintion between having the opportunity to have access to specialized knowledge and know that this option is denied and therefore have the right to seek it somewhere else.

Protest follows denial of morning-after pill (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/03/pharmacy.protest.ap/index.html)


DENTON, Texas (AP) -- About 40 people gathered outside an Eckerd pharmacy Monday, protesting what they said was a decision to deny a rape victim a prescription for the morning-after pill.

A spokesman for the Florida-based company confirmed that Eckerd has taken disciplinary action in response to an incident at the store.

"Apparently there was a request for a prescription to be filled and the prescription was denied based on a moral or ethical decision made by the pharmacist, and that's not in accordance with our corporate policy," said Joan Gallagher, vice president of communications for Largo, Florida-based Eckerd Corp.

Gallagher told the Denton Record-Chronicle that she could provide no other details.

The protesters carried signs. Some stood silently and others chanted slogans.

[...]

An unidentified friend of the woman seeking the prescription told the newspaper she got the drug from a neighboring pharmacy.

Gay Dodson, executive director of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, said state law allows pharmacists to decline filling prescriptions if the medication could harm the patient.

"The law does not say that the pharmacy can decline because of moral ground," she said.




First of all the State Laws of Texas never cease to amaze me...How it is ever possible a simple pharmacist to have an opinion about a drug that has the official permission to be sold?[El Greco, no offense I hope you know what I mean]

It seems that in the case of the pharmacist, once the patient had the alternative to purchase the pill from another pharmacy he could exercise his right to place his religious beliefs over his duty and I bet that this where he will base his defense.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
How it is ever possible a simple pharmacist to have an opinion about a drug that has the official permission to be sold?
I don't know what is the problem with that.
Why he should do something that is allowed but is not imposed.
If he don't want all the clients, that is his problem.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Rats!!!!

Posts are missing from this thread especially our last posts that they were the most essential and where we did the comparison between the freedom of Press and the one's freedon to place his religious beliefs over his work--an idea suggested by ceo_esq and refuted by moi.

BTW ceo_esq in mu.nu I claimed that I won this argument, I have to let you know since you don't post there and you couldn't respond to that.

Anyway I remember very well what I have posted and I wanted to post this article in support of my views.I made the distintion between having the opportunity to have access to specialized knowledge and know that this option is denied and therefore have the right to seek it somewhere else.

Protest follows denial of morning-after pill (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/03/pharmacy.protest.ap/index.html)

...

First of all the State Laws of Texas never cease to amaze me...How it is ever possible a simple pharmacist to have an opinion about a drug that has the official permission to be sold?[El Greco, no offense I hope you know what I mean]

It seems that in the case of the pharmacist, once the patient had the alternative to purchase the pill from another pharmacy he could exercise his right to place his religious beliefs over his duty and I bet that this where he will base his defense. My memory of the parts of this thread that may have disappeared is a bit hazy. While I don't have a specific recollection of the refutation you're referring to, I will gallantly concede that I may simply have forgotten or overlooked it. :) Unfortunately, that leaves me subjectively holding the same point of view as if it had never been refuted.

At any rate, I think you may have misunderstood the Texas law. It allows the pharmacist to decline to fill a prescription if there is reason to believe it would harm the patient - for example, if the pharmacist notices the potential for an adverse drug interaction that escaped the prescribing physician's attention. The law does not allow for what this particular pharmacist did regarding the contraceptive drugs - in other words, the law contains a "professional judgment exception" but not a conscience exception, which is why this pharmacist may be in trouble.

As a practical matter, the very fact that the woman was able to get her prescription filled at the pharmacy across the street makes this a less-than-dramatic case for the history books. However, it will probably renew legislative and professional support for more freedom-of-conscience clauses to be added to state pharmacy practice statutes.

I recognize that this news article directly relates to one of the issues we'd previously been discussing, but precisely what is it about the article that you think lends support to your position?