Would you impose you beliefs on another?

[a4a]

Update you can google the story with these words:

 

Virginia teen loses fight to use alternative treatment

[The slayer]

In my opinion forcing medical treatment upon any individual regardless of age is no different than witholding it (for any reason other than it being medically contraindicated}

[EnigmaXOXO]

Did you newfew want to taked the meds or not? What was his choice.

 

He was only thirteen at the time (he just turned sixteen). He was pretty uneducated about diabetes as his parents were. (It runs prevalent on our side of the family. My father's sister died at a very early age because of it.)

 

They discovered his condition during a free health screening offered at a fair they attended. The numbers were pretty bad (from what I understand) so they followed the initial advice and took him to a health care professional. It was confirmed that he had juvenal diabetes and needed treatment.

 

They never went back to the doctor. My sister only found out because her son slipped and told her (wasn't suppose to) … she called his father and went ballistic when she found out that the only thing they were doing for him was giving him Herbolife. She found out who the doctor was and called him … and was horrified when he filled her in. After much arguing trying to get them to come to their senses, she telephoned the lawyer and back to court everyone went. Both sets of grandparents were there (including my parents), and from what I understand, the judge was not pleased at all. Threatened to have both boys removed from their care and to the custodianship of their biological mother if they failed to comply with the court order.

 

As far as my nephews … they were/are only young boys at the mercy of the adults responsible for their care. Still are.

[blind_otter]

I was going to say, but Enigma's personal story made the point quite eloquently. Patients are very often not educated about their own illnesses. It's a sad fact. And if they refuse treatment without really knowing the full consequences of their choices, that puts the healthcare practitioner in a precarious situation.

[The slayer]

In the UK, it's part of the healthcare practioners role to gain informed consent before administering any treatment. This should mean ( but I do acknowledge doesn't always happen) having the abilty to communicate the pro's and con's of any treatment in a way that the patient will understand. Overcoming ignorance in a non judgemental way and making sure that nobody refuses treatment unless they truly understand the implications of doing so. This concept also ensures that nobody enters into any form of treatment without an understanding of the risks.The availabilty of medicines and treatment is based upon emperical evidence.

 

Sadly this is becoming harder and harder as new treatments are developed quickly and have such a high price tag. Inevitably this can only mean the end of a non profit making healthcare system that is free at that point of delivery.

[crazy_grl]

Which oath is more important the one to god or the physicans oath.

 

The Hippocratic oath says to do no harm, does it not. It is up to the individual physician to use their judgment on what is harmful. If that doctor's religion teaches that birth control has a negative affect on people spiritually, then in the doctor's judgment, birth control would be harmful.

 

I think it's up to the each doctor to decide what they will or won't do. It's not like a patient is forced to go to only one doctor or pharmasist. To me, suing for something so frivolous is dumb. It's a lot easier just to find a doctor who's beliefs agree with yours.

 

A doctor has to rely on their own judgement whether it stems from religious beliefs of not. Think about assisted suicide. A lot of people feel it's wrong and most doctors won't do it. That belief stems from religion. In some cultures, suicide is noble. If a patient asks their doctor to help with their suicide, should the doctor accept because they don't want to impose their religious beliefs on that patient? I don't think they should. Obviously there are doctors willing to do so, and I believe the patient should seek out one of those doctors whose beliefs match theirs instead of suing someone for not wanting to violate their own morals.

 

Authorities and lawyers should only be involved when a doctor deceives a patient or when their actions or inaction cause a real problem for the patient, not just the inconvience of having to find a new doc or drive to a different pharmacy.

 

Really which is the greater imposition:

-Asking someone to violate their morals and religious beliefs, therefore (in their eyes) risking their immortal soul

or

-Having someone go to the Rite Aid down the street instead

[Becoming]

We all need to be true to beliefs that are good. But here's the rub. Who determines what is good? My father had a spell where he believed it was good not to eat because his food was poisoned. Enigma's relatives believe holistic meds are better than a dr's. Does the judge have the right to force his beliefs over those of the parents? You betcha.

 

Thus the argument comes down to: on what basis do we determine which of our beliefs are good? Surely the preservation of life is one criteria. But what of the terminally ill 16-yr-old refusing treatment? Preserving life in that case doesn't seem good. Letting nature take its turn seems better.

 

But dtermining what is good is the function of various authorities in society. Now I'm as anti-authoritarian as the next person, perhaps more so. But we need authorities' guidance, whether it is the ancestors' wisdom or regulatory agencies.

 

For instance, law is about determining what is good in various situations. That's why it's case law based on universal principles determined in concrete situations applied and refined in other situations. But we all know how dicey a process this is.

 

Re: Rite Aid refusing to fill morning after pill. Doesn't the FDA determine the good in this case? And anyone going to work for a company that dispenses that drug shouldn't have the right to refuse it based on their beliefs. They need to find a job in a Catholic hospital!

 

Abortion is a rough one, though. It's like whose good takes precedence then--those who can't speak for themselves or the one whose life will never be the same in ways that cannot be determined as either good or bad since we cannot know the future.

 

And that's just it. There's a certain unknowing in all of this, which is why they are beliefs rather than facts.

 

In the case of religious proselytizing, I share my beliefs, but I hope not forcefully because that is not the nature of the divine reality I believe in--a reality that seems to operate more on the principle of attraction and wooing rather than violent force.

 

So that should about clear everything up. :laugh: :rolleyes:

[blind_otter]

I think there is a somewhat mercenary attitude when it comes to healthcare practitioners and their patients. More often than not they are attempting to prevent an even more catastrophic or emotionally difficult outcome with things like palliative care, but I know for a fact that MANY healthcare practitioners lack the training to be able to effectively communicate their motivations in a clear manner that patients with varying levels of education may understand.

 

There's a good book that I'm reading now that discusses this very issue, called "On Death and Dying" by Kubler-Ross. She has an entire chapter on communicating effectively with terminally ill patients and their family and the book is written more for healthcare professionals. One story was about a woman in her late 20s with two young children who held on to a delusional denial about her condition right until her death.

 

She was dying of liver failure, but refused to obey strict dietary restrictions, and would gorge herself, leaving the staff to do crisis control and a lot of unnecessary medical intervention in order to keep her comfortable during her last days. It made the whole situation sad and difficult for everyone, and her family stopped visiting her. She died alone with a hospice counselor and physical therapist by her bedside.

 

I digress. It's a difficult situation, the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis. Which one is better? The rock or the hard place?

 

WE all hope or expect to be treated respectfully when it comes to medical treatment. But technological innovations and moral conundrums can make this difficult. I wish there was an easy answer. Whose morality is the right morality, whose takes precedence?

[norajane]

Really which is the greater imposition:

-Asking someone to violate their morals and religious beliefs, therefore (in their eyes) risking their immortal soul

or

-Having someone go to the Rite Aid down the street instead

 

There are small towns all over America where going down the street to another pharamcy isn't possible. There is no other pharmacy. They'd have to drive 100 miles or more to find one. And maybe they don't have a car. Or are in pain and can't. Or they are a rape victim and aren't able to see straight much less drive 100 miles for a morning after pill.

 

There are also lots of small towns where there is only one med center. If they refuse procedures, then people must go elsewhere. I think in North or South Dakota, if an abortion is needed, they must go to Minnesota. This really isn't such an easy thing for those who have little financial means and maybe can't take extra time off work just to get there and back in addition to their recovery time.

 

Then there's the issue of whether the pharmacist is in any position to make medical decisions that contradict those of our physicians. Pharmacist might feel like he's going to hell by dispensing BC pills, but who's to say the patient is taking the pills for BC? BC pills are often prescribed to women and non-sexually active girls who are having problems regulating their periods, where excessive bleeding can cause anemia and/or worse. Do we really want pharamacists to be making those decisions for us when they know nothing about our medical history and have not been treating us for our conditions?

 

And finally, there's the slippery slope. Today, pharmacists will refuse to dispense BC pills or morning after pills. Perhaps tomorrow, they'll refuse AIDS medication because it's a sin against god to be gay. Or will refuse Viagra to single men because it's a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Or a nurse who is a Jehovah's Witness will refuse to assist in a blood transfusion or an ambulance EMT who is JH will refuse to use a defibrillator when someone's heart stops.

 

These are licensed professionals. If they cannot fulfill ALL the terms of their professions, they need not apply. If they cannot fulfill ALL the terms of their employment, they should be fired.

[HokeyReligions]

There are state and federals laws governing medical treatment and the dispensing of drugs that non-faith-based health care agencies must follow. You can look them up on the AMA site and/or on your state medical association sites. Medical treatment cannot be refused in emergency cases and there are all sorts of avenues to go through to gain non-emergeny medical treatment.

 

As for religion and civil rights - the two don't mesh. There is no civil law that prevents any person of talking about their faith or of trying to convince others to join their faith. That is guaranteed by the constitution. Pharmacy's have laws that they must abide by also. They can refuse to carry certain products or drugs because of their own set of values so that would be in a way denial of a drug. Just like Chick Fil-A is not open on Sunday because of the owner's beliefs, or dry counties.

 

Let me know what small town pharmacy is refusing to fill certain perscriptions - I'm looking for a new opportunity and might open my own drug store there!

[lindya]

Where is the line drawn between be committed to your beliefs and focing them on someone else.

 

When you start billing your spiritual beliefs above another person's health, safety and welfare.

 

The idea that it's okay for a doctor to assess what's best for a patient with reference to his/her own religious beliefs, rather than by the application of objective medical knowledge, is worrying. I certainly wouldn't feel I was getting anything like an acceptable service from a doctor who applied that approach.

 

There's a lot to be said for professional detachment - especially in an area as important as medicine.

[Becoming]

The thing that gets me is that the same pharmacist who won't dispense a morning after pill is the same one who WILL fill the Viagara Rx of the guy who knocked her up.

 

There is definite sexism at work in all these beliefs.

[Outcast]

If you refuse to do the duties of the job, you don't belong in the job. Imagine an auto worker who refused to make exhaust systems because cars create pollution or a brewery worker who refused to bottle beer because there's alcoholism.

 

If you can't hack dispensing certain medications to certain people, then find another career. People get away with far too much BS by claiming it's done in the name of 'religion'. The professional associations of these folks should remove certification from anyone who takes these jobs and then refuses to perform them.

[Becoming]

I had a job once where after a few months I figured out I was working to supply parts for weapons manufacturers. I had a problem with giving my life to promote death, so I quit and found another job that fit my values better.

[Outcast]

Exactly. I was working for an obscenely large oil company and just couldn't hack that the whole point of the work for everyone in the place was to make more money for shareholders Plus it's one of the companies that keeps insisting global warning doesn't exist. The money was excellent but it wasn't worth it to me.

[The slayer]

Not compromising your own beliefs is so much more valuable than trying to impose them upon others

[alphamale]

The money was excellent but it wasn't worth it to me.

Everyone has to eat OUTCAST...if you can come up with a better solution then please do let us know

[Outcast]

It's not like there's only one job in the world, Alf. I can get a job anytime I want. I'm making less money, but live perfectly comfortably, including with myself.

[Nicholas]

IMO, I think the doctor should do whatever the patient wants since the patient is essentially the customer and the doctor is providing a professional service

 

I don't think a doctor should be forced to violate his beliefs.

 

On the other hand, I also don't think a doctor should work in a place where his beliefs are going to be tested. There are plenty of hospitals that are founded by religous faiths, and its generally understood that patients who check into them are going to be treated according to that faith's doctrine.

 

Additionally, I think patients have the right to a doctor who will treat them according to the patient's beliefs. The doctor is within his right to not do something they consider immoral, but oversteps their professional boundaries when they seek to make sure no one can. I even think they are professionally obligated to find someone else who can do it. You are only "imposing" the belief on another person if you are the patient's only medical option.

 

It's the difference between a doctor saying "Sorry, I can't do this" and "Sorry, you can't have this."

[Nicholas]

There are small towns all over America where going down the street to another pharamcy isn't possible. There are small towns all over America where going down the street to another pharamcy isn't possible. There is no other pharmacy. They'd have to drive 100 miles or more to find one. And maybe they don't have a car. Or are in pain and can't. Or they are a rape victim and aren't able to see straight much less drive 100 miles for a morning after pill.

 

It's a sad situation, but it doesn't change anything. To use a less emotionally-charged example, if your small town has burger kings but no pizza huts, you do not have a right to demand that burger king make you a pizza.

 

It would be different if pharmacies were public services, but they are not.

 

To be sure, I am talking about pharmacies who refuse to dispense these medications, not pharmacists. A pharmacist who refuses to do his job is just being insubordinate.

 

I think in North or South Dakota, if an abortion is needed, they must go to Minnesota.

 

South Dakota is an exceptional case because it is challenging Roe V. Wade right now by criminalizing abortion.

 

Before that, it was the other way around. A doctor from another state would fly to the one Planned Parenthood in South Dakota. Roe v. Wade said that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to have nonuniform abortion laws, because wealthy women could travel across state lines whereas poor women could not. This is why several states in which the political and social culture almost entirely rejects abortion still have one abortion clinic.

[Darkwall]

IMO, I think the doctor should do whatever the patient wants since the patient is essentially the customer and the doctor is providing a professional service, but in a situation like you describe one person's beliefs are always going to be violated. It's just a matter of perspective and who has priority.

 

I agree with this, and well put I might add.

 

I'll also add that why practice medicine if you're not going to treat the person as they wish to be treated? Why does that doctors personal beliefs CONTROL how and if a person is treated?

[Nicholas]

I think people are oversimplifying things when they say "the patient is essentially the customer" or that the doctor is simply rendering a simple service.