Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[Tris]

I saw on CNN that the O'Bama admin is working on clearing out some of the "Moral Objection" B.S. that was enacted ahead of his administration and became active on the day he took office. I wonder how well these "moral objectionists" from the Family Research Counsel, etc. would have liked it if their grandparents' / parents' docs didn't mention the polio vaccine because they didn't believe in it, and felt it was morally superior to not discuss it. Oh wait, they'd either not be hear, or still sitting in an iron lung somewhere:P

I personally find it frightening that the Dubya administration allowed doctors, etc. to not provide information a all on things they didn't believe in. That the doctors could refuse to administer such treatment, etc. I wonder if the rule set would have protected a doctor who encountered Rush Limbaugh in a life threatening situation, and who decided not to treat him, because the doctor didn't believe in treating conservative drug users?:P

[Jester]

I'm not sure I get the O'Bama joke. Is he Irish now?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So you are in favor of forcing people to do things that are against their conscience?

HHS says the rule would "in no way restrict health-care providers from performing any legal service or procedure. If a procedure is legal, a patient will still have the ability to access that service from a medical professional or institution that offers it. For example, the regulation does not affect the ability of medical institutions to provide abortion services in accordance with the law."

[Chesspiece_face]

So you are in favor of forcing people to do things that are against their conscience?

HHS says the rule would "in no way restrict health-care providers from performing any legal service or procedure. If a procedure is legal, a patient will still have the ability to access that service from a medical professional or institution that offers it. For example, the regulation does not affect the ability of medical institutions to provide abortion services in accordance with the law."

As far as i'm concerned the second you take the Hippocratic Oath you are under obligation to inform your patients of treatments that can better their health and to point them to where they can obtain such treatments if the patient so chooses. To obfuscate or ignore a treatment because you find it morally objectionable starts down a quick and dirty road of ethical irresponsability when it comes to patient health care.

The issue of morality in any treatment should be solely under the discretion of the patient to decide what they choose to do with their health.

[Swiss Mercenary]

So you are in favor of forcing people to do things that are against their conscience?

Madness! Next we'll be in favour of forcing soldiers to do something that may be against their conscience... Like shooting at people.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not sure I get the O'Bama joke. Is he Irish now?

Apparently some people thought so when he first ran for state senator (in The Audacity of Hope, IIRC, but I'm not about to look it up in my dead tree copy ). Wonder if he got the Black Irish vote :lol:

--Pete

[Lissa]

So you are in favor of forcing people to do things that are against their conscience?

HHS says the rule would "in no way restrict health-care providers from performing any legal service or procedure. If a procedure is legal, a patient will still have the ability to access that service from a medical professional or institution that offers it. For example, the regulation does not affect the ability of medical institutions to provide abortion services in accordance with the law."

What about when the provider refuses to do the procedure even though they are required by law to do so, ala giving out RU-428 to rape victims to keep them from getting pregnant? The Hippocratic oath says, "do no harm," but when a provider refuses to give services to prevent someone from being harmed, they've broken their oath, and if I'm not mistaken, broken part of their license to practice medicine.

[Hammerskjold]

I'm not sure I get the O'Bama joke. Is he Irish now?

-Jester

Judging by some of his jump shots, he's probably got a bit of Celtics in him.

[--Pete]

Hi,

As far as i'm concerned the second you take the Hippocratic Oath you are under obligation to inform your patients of treatments that can better their health and to point them to where they can obtain such treatments if the patient so chooses. To obfuscate or ignore a treatment because you find it morally objectionable starts down a quick and dirty road of ethical irresponsability when it comes to patient health care.

The issue of morality in any treatment should be solely under the discretion of the patient to decide what they choose to do with their health.

I like your answer, overall. It walks the fine line between forcing a doctor to perform acts which he holds abhorrent and denying a patient information which is pertinent. Both the doctor and the patient must be as fully informed as possible so that they can intelligently follow a course that is best for the patient. Once a patent has the information and makes a decision, it is up to him to find a doctor willing and able to provide that treatment.

Any treatment should be available to all and forced on none, neither patient nor doctor.

As to the Hippocratic Oath, that is not as clear cut as some think.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Madness! Next we'll be in favour of forcing soldiers to do something that may be against their conscience... Like shooting at people.

Conscientious objectors.

--Pete

[Nystul]

As far as i'm concerned the second you take the Hippocratic Oath you are under obligation to inform your patients of treatments that can better their health and to point them to where they can obtain such treatments if the patient so chooses. To obfuscate or ignore a treatment because you find it morally objectionable starts down a quick and dirty road of ethical irresponsability when it comes to patient health care.

The issue of morality in any treatment should be solely under the discretion of the patient to decide what they choose to do with their health.

So for example, if I had a patient in desperate need of a heart transplant, I am obligated by the Hippocratic Oath to inform him that one of his family members' hearts might do the trick?

[--Pete]

Hi,

So for example, if I had a patient in desperate need of a heart transplant, I am obligated by the Hippocratic Oath to inform him that one of his family members' hearts might do the trick?

Why not? It really isn't medically relevant since getting that heart isn't realistic (except, maybe, in an episode of Law & Order). But, OTOH, you would need to inform he patient that he needed a heart transplant, and you would need to discuss issues like type matching and rejection.

Now, offering to kill that relative to get your patient a heart is probably Not A Good Thing. :whistling:

--Pete

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,

As to the Hippocratic Oath, that is not as clear cut as some think.

--Pete

I'm well aware of the murkiness of the Hippocratic Oath. I'm also aware enough to know that the arguments used by the doctors that wish to deny services and information to their patients hide behind the aformentioned murkiness as a way to divest themselves of any need to follow modern medical ethics.

One can argue the semantics of the Oath till their blue in the face, it's not modern ethics that needs to fit the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath needs to be assimilated to fit with the needs of ethics as it pertains to modern medicine. Essentially what these doctors are saying is: "We understand the ethical structure of modern medicine. We choose not to follow it." And then they rationalize that with a straw man argument about semantics.

[Nystul]

Now, offering to kill that relative to get your patient a heart is probably Not A Good Thing. :whistling:

Are you sure? It might be considerably more dangerous if the patient tries to do it himself. :ph34r:

[--Pete]

Hi,

The Hippocratic Oath needs to be assimilated to fit with the needs of ethics as it pertains to modern medicine.

Please read the link I gave you, for your statements reek of ignorance.

Not only has the Hippocratic Oath been 'modernized', but it has been modified in many ways and in different ways. And a fair number of medical schools do not use it at all.

So, if you wish to discuss the Hippocratic Oath, at least inform yourself of the facts. As Pat Moynihan once remarked, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

If you wish to discuss the ethics of doctors following their own ethical code, then try not to be too big a bigot about it.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Are you sure? It might be considerably more dangerous if the patient tries to do it himself. :ph34r:

Why do it yourself? I have this friend, Vinnie. Let him take care of it for you. He works out of MI, lower East side, Second Ave. Reasonable rates -- you might almost say he'll make you an offer you can't refuse;)

--Pete

[Swiss Mercenary]

Hi,
Conscientious objectors.

--Pete

I'm well aware of their existance in countries with conscription... Yet I don't think that makes a good defense in a volunteer military, like in the US or Canada.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Your logic escapes me. First you say "Madness! Next we'll be in favour of forcing soldiers to do something that may be against their conscience... Like shooting at people."

I point out the existence of conscientious objectors and you reply:

I'm well aware of their existance in countries with conscription... Yet I don't think that makes a good defense in a volunteer military, like in the US or Canada.

And at this point I'm baffled. If killing people is against a person's conscience, why would that person join an army, especially an all volunteer army?

Your argument is, I think, neither apropos nor rational.

--Pete

[roguebanshee]

Conscientious objectors.

Aren't soldiers in the first place.

[Chesspiece_face]

Hi,
Please read the link I gave you, for your statements reek of ignorance.

Not only has the Hippocratic Oath been 'modernized', but it has been modified in many ways and in different ways. And a fair number of medical schools do not use it at all.

So, if you wish to discuss the Hippocratic Oath, at least inform yourself of the facts. As Pat Moynihan once remarked, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

If you wish to discuss the ethics of doctors following their own ethical code, then try not to be too big a bigot about it.

--Pete

I think maybe you misunderstand my point. Possibly because I referred to taking the Hippocratic Oath in my original post when instead I could have easily substituted "chose to become a doctor". The point of this topic revolves around general practice doctors, as far as i'm concerned if someone wishes to become a doctor and they have certain moral or religious views that limit their ability to practice some medicine then they should find jobs that fit those circumstances. There are many care facilities that practice and conform to fundamental religious views. If you are a patient of such a facility you are already self selecting on which medical practices you find to be morally objectionable.

If you choose to be a doctor and you have a moral objection to certain medical practices yet you still choose to be a general practitioner where you will treat patients from across the spectrum of beliefs then to hell with your objections. Much like your observation of a soldier who morally objects to shooting people yet still joins a volunteer army.