[Update: Nov 30/07]
From some of the comments I've been getting over the last 24 hours, it seems that the CNN link below now points to a story about a boy who refused treatment because of his religious beliefs. That is NOT the story that this article is based on. It is in fact based on a CNN interview with doctors who were refusing treatment to patients based upon the doctor's religious beliefs.
[/Update]
When Doctors start refusing treatment on religious grounds, something is vastly out of whack in the world.
Don't misunderstand me - I have no problem with medical doctors having active religious lives. However, when otherwise perfectly legal treatments are refused on the grounds that it conflicts with the "doctor's religious beliefs", then there is a serious, serious problem.
The last thing I, or any other patient, wants is to go to a doctor and instead of treatment receive a lecture on the morality of our lives as an excuse for not treating the patient.
There's an underlying misogyny to this practice, as it is most often women who find themselves refused treatment. From abortion to birth control pills or "the morning after" pills, religious doctors are refusing to provide treatment they deem "immoral".
There's more to the picture though. What if your doctor were to decide that cancer was a punishment from "god" for an "immoral life" and refuse you treatment? Or perhaps the myriad of symptoms that some women experience as part of their monthly cycle are a punishment from "god" for being "temptresses", and therefore unworthy of treatment? Pick your scenario, just about anything can be construed as 'immoral' depending on how you interpret scripture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alberta's Anti-Trans Legislation
So, now that the UCP has rolled out their anti-trans legislation, we can take a long look at it. Yesterday, they tabled 3 related bills and...
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ... -
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
3 comments:
It's funny how these so called doctors, who upon graduating and surviving their internship are able to take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm' can ignore it for their 'religious' convictions. Is it because the oath is based on a 'Pagan' practitioner? Or has God just become a convenient excuse to avoid accountability and responsibility? Has becoming a doctor just a way to make a buck by picking and choosing who and what you will or will not treat? This is not a case of a patient who won't stop smoking and drinking to save their life from the threat or presence of cancer, or a substance abuser who is avoiding facing the reality of their situation. If a doctor can do this then we have a right to know about these health providers regardless of what the CMA and their affiliates may say about their privacy, it's our tax dollars that fund our health care system.
A doctor can express their professional opinion on matters and methods of treatment, the relative risks and such, but leave the personal bias outside the office and hospital. How is it that even today in the 21st century that supposedly well educated and professional people can still hold onto misogynistic and superstitious beliefs and practices? Are they in need to be in control so badly they have to fall back on Medieval practices of a 'witch hunt' (ie. it's always the woman's fault) to prove their superiority? Here is another reason to enforce the separation between Church and State, if only for the sake of the health of the nation.
E.
MgS
But isn’t this really about choice. I would have thought true liberals would support the right of a person to choose not to be complicit in something they think is immoral. The woman in question could easily obtain her contraceptives elsewhere, as she in fact did. There’s no story here apart from a “let’s go bash the Catholic Church about something” story.
Also as part of your strawman argument you say:
“Pick your scenario, just about anything can be construed as ‘immoral’ depending on how you interpret scripture.”
Of course the doctor in question was Catholic and as such is hardly permitted to interpret scripture any way he wants.
Actually Jerry, This has nothing to do specifically with the Catholic Church per se.
As I recall the doctors in question in this story were part of other religions.
The problem that it was raising is that we are talking about creating an environment where suddenly the patient finds themselves subject to moral judgment on the part of the doctor/medical practitioner prior to receiving treatment.
Not merely upon the grounds that the doctor thinks the treatment is immoral, but because the doctor thinks that the patient is immoral. That raises a plethora of frightening probabilities. It is not a strawman, it is, in fact something that has been emerging in the US in recent years, and Bush just signed a presidential "rule" on the matter - one that is sufficiently broad that in particular women and others could find it excessively difficult to access medical care - even when it is necessary.
Post a Comment