"Conscience" Rule for Health Care Providers

Celia Cyanide said:

Why would someone become a plastic surgeon if they have a moral objection to plastic surgery procedures?

Click to expand...

Presumably, they make a distinction between "worthy" surgery -- correcting an actual defect, or scarring/injury, versus "unworthy" surgery -- simply wishing to make yourself "more attractive" according to whatever standard you set.

EDIT: And I see Alessandra Kelley made pretty much the same point, only more succinctly.

Alessandra Kelley said:

My sister worker for a plastic surgeon who mostly did reconstructive surgery on burn victims. A plastic surgeon with altruistic motives might still object to certain of the more gruesome and frivolous cosmetic surgeries.

Click to expand...

True. However, I'm assuming that receptionists at plastic surgery offices are not allowed to refuse to talk to patients who want cosmetic surgeries they consider frivolous? Because that is exactly how far this goes.

Celia Cyanide said:

Why would someone become a plastic surgeon if they have a moral objection to plastic surgery procedures?

Click to expand...

There are actually some people who are addicted to plastic surgery. Or the surgeon might object to performing on teenagers. Or he may not agree with the reason behind it, whatever it may be.

If I was a doctor and found out some glorified apothecary was interfering with my patients' prescriptions behind my back, I'd be strongly suggesting to ALL of my patients they go to a different pharmacy. And if it was a one-pharmacy town, well then I'd be raising holy hell.

Albedo said:

If I was a doctor and found out some glorified apothecary was interfering with my patients' prescriptions behind my back, I'd be strongly suggesting to ALL of my patients they go to a different pharmacy. And if it was a one-pharmacy town, well then I'd be raising holy hell.

Click to expand...

The first thing that occurred to me is that the market will sort the problem out pretty quickly. If someone can't get one prescription at a pharmacy, they aren't likely to go there for anything. Eventually, that pharmacy loses money and goes out of business.

This is true even for one-pharmacy towns. There are other towns people can travel to, and the single town pharmacy can least afford to alienate local customers.

Okay, this thread is long, and I haven't read it all yet, but what about doctors or nurses who don't want to treat a criminal? Can they opt out? If so...that's horrible! I may want the man to die, but he has a right to life. And doctors are meant to protect and save that life.

ETA: Just noticed when this was first started (the thread).

A right to life is not synonymous with a right to healthcare. One is a negative right, the other a privilege in some cases granted by one's government at the expense of the general population.

Roger J Carlson said:

The first thing that occurred to me is that the market will sort the problem out pretty quickly. If someone can't get one prescription at a pharmacy, they aren't likely to go there for anything. Eventually, that pharmacy loses money and goes out of business.

This is true even for one-pharmacy towns. There are other towns people can travel to, and the single town pharmacy can least afford to alienate local customers.

Click to expand...

You're assuming that all pharmacy customers are like-minded and against the actions of the pharmacists in question.

Demographically speaking, there is likely a portion of the population who hold the same closed-minded, bigoted viewpoints as the pharmacists and would continue to frequent a pharmacy run by a closed-minded bigot. I imagine that there are likely other closed-minded, bigoted people out there who would gladly switch from their pharmacy to the one run by the closed-minded bigot, in order to show their support.

The market almost NEVER "sorts out" issues such as the pharmacy one. If anything, it perpetuates them.

I've mentioned this in another thread in recent years, but I don't see it mentioned here. Some people with such principles go into certain professions specifically so they can refuse to do the part of their profession they object. It seems I've heard of this in relation to pharmacology and things such as the morning-after pill.

mmallico said:

I am against abortion, but I don't consider birth control to be abortion. If a doctor wants to refuse a patient care which is not life threatening, then that should be allowed. Obviously if the patient is in critical danger, then they should cast aside their moral objections. For example, if a plastic surgeon wants to refuse a patient an operation, then that is well within their right.

Click to expand...

How far can "religious tolerance" go? What happens if a patient needs a blood transfusion to save his/her life, and the only person qualified to do a transfusion is a doctor who is also a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to do it?

I have no clue whether Jehovah's Witnesses apply their beliefs to others like that, but clearly SOME religious believers do, and it's not limited to Christianity - there are news stories of Muslim cab drivers who refuse to give a ride to someone carrying a bottle of wine or other alcoholic beverage.

Opty said:

The market almost NEVER "sorts out" issues such as the pharmacy one. If anything, it perpetuates them.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Boycotts have been used successfully for years to change policies from businesses governments, from advertising to Apartheid.

The problem I have with pharmacists and others being granted such a "conscience exemption" is that they already have what amounts to government-sanctioned gatekeeper status. If you, an ordinary citizen, want birth control pills or any other prescribed medication, you are legally forbidden from getting it on your own; you can ONLY get it through a government gatekeeper.

I do have philosophical objections to any medication other than antibiotics being doled out exclusively through gatekeepers, but forget that objection for the sake of this argument; so long as gatekeepers do exist for such medications, I don't believe they have the right to force patients to jump through additional hoops of the gatekeeper's own choosing, and that's basically what the conscience exemption does.

By contrast, if someone wants to (for example) refuse to sell condoms to unmarried people -- well, that person is a bigoted ass, but in such cases I'd say he has the *right* to be a bigoted ass about such things, because the government does not force you to get a gatekeeper's permission to buy condoms. No condom-seller enjoys what amounts to a government-sanctioned monopoly on his product, the way pharmacists effectively do.

Roger J Carlson said:

I disagree. Boycotts have been used successfully for years to change policies from businesses governments, from advertising to Apartheid.

Click to expand...

It is more difficult to boycott pharmacies than you might think. If you need a perscription filled, you might have little choice. Most of the pharmacies that allow their staff to refuse perscriptions are the bigger companies, which are the most accessible. Where I used to live, the only drug store in the area were major corporations, and the pharmacy at the doctor's office, which closed at 5--the same time I got off work. And I lived in a big city.

benbradley said:

I've mentioned this in another thread in recent years, but I don't see it mentioned here. Some people with such principles go into certain professions specifically so they can refuse to do the part of their profession they object. It seems I've heard of this in relation to pharmacology and things such as the morning-after pill.


How far can "religious tolerance" go? What happens if a patient needs a blood transfusion to save his/her life, and the only person qualified to do a transfusion is a doctor who is also a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to do it?

I have no clue whether Jehovah's Witnesses apply their beliefs to others like that, but clearly SOME religious believers do, and it's not limited to Christianity - there are news stories of Muslim cab drivers who refuse to give a ride to someone carrying a bottle of wine or other alcoholic beverage.

Click to expand...

"Obviously if the patient is in critical danger, then they should cast aside their moral objections."

I believe that as long as the situation is non life theartening, then doctors should be able to choose how they apply their care. But only then.

Shouldn't they refer the patient to another doctor? I don't believe doctors are required to perform any precedure, but they usually do refer them to other doctors who can help their patients, if they cannot.

Celia Cyanide said:

If you need a perscription filled, you might have little choice. Most of the pharmacies that allow their staff to refuse perscriptions are the bigger companies, which are the most accessible.

Click to expand...

This seems counter-intuitive. Can you provide a citation for it?

The only evidence to the contrary I have is anecdotal.

At my local Walgreens, one pharmacist refused to give flu shots (I don't know why). She worked the early morning shift by herself, so they moved her to a different shift, where there would be others who would give shots, and gave her morning shift to another who would give shots.

Big pharmacies, with multiple pharmicists, may accomodate conscience objections, but they'll also schedule to serve their customers.

I would think the biggest problem would be small, single operator pharmacies where the owners conscience determines the policy for the business.