Does A Doctor

[mangell6]

Does a doctor have the right to not prescribe the pill?

On the news and in todays paper is the article about the Nelson Doctor who has written to his women patients advising them that he can nolonger prescribe "contraceptives".

The media has now pronounced that teen pregnancies are going to be rife and I guess that these women are going to be responsible. I wonder how many of them are teenagers.

Thoughts??

And how many people will recognise what the issue actually is?

[TLDV8]

The media has now pronounced that teen pregnancies are going to be rife and I guess that these women are going to be responsible. I wonder how many of them are teenagers.

Thoughts??

Last time i looked NZ had one of the highest teen pregnacy/abortion rates in the western world,so contraception doesn't seem to be high on the list as it is. ?..to add to that as far as contraception goes,its a 2 way street and should not be left to the Woman anyway. (imho)

[James Deuce]

I have no problem with a Catholic doctor sticking to the letter of his beliefs.

[M1CRO]

I think the point is and it begs the question:
Can a "General Practitioner" decide to treat some things and not others? If you move residence (or decide to change doctors), do you now ring a doctor and ask "Can you provide an anti-pregnancy service? Can you provide innoculations? Can you treat my cold?"

IMHO.. How ridiculous to narrow on SOME medical issues that they will and wont do based on their beliefs.. If you dont want to do the whole job, then dont do ANY of it!!..

Lets expand that idea to some other occupations:
Cop - I will only give out speeding tickets but I will not attend any accidents cos I hate the site of blood!
Ambulance Officer - I will only treat people that are sick but I will not attend if a fight breaks out as I am a pacifist and dont like violence!

[Biff]

Does a doctor have the right to not prescribe the pill?


Yes. Any medical practitioner has the legal right to refuse treatment on ethical or religious grounds. But it's a grey area.

[El Dopa]

Yes. Any medical practitioner has the legal right to refuse treatment on ethical or religious grounds. But it's a grey area.

Well they bloody shouldn't have that right.

If I went to the doctor for, oh, I dunno, a cactus stuck up my arse, and the doc turned round and told me he wouldn't treat me bcause I was a dirty perv, I'd be pulling it out myself and shoving it up his. Hard.

It's none of their fucking business what their patients do or don't do. If they smoke, drink or eat to excess, they can certainly tell them in no uncertain terms that they'll end up in an early grave, but it's most definitely not their business to refuse treatment to ANYONE. I don't see prescibing the pill as any different. The patient isn't catholic.

It's not a fucking smorgasboard. They don't get to pick and choose the illnesses etc that they like and want to treat.

[curious george]

I have no problem with a Catholic doctor sticking to the letter of his beliefs.
I do. They are there to help me, not judge me.
If they have a belief against my wishes, it is their responsibility to make sure I have access to another who will help me with my medical decisions.


Yes. Any medical practitioner has the legal right to refuse treatment on ethical or religious grounds. But it's a grey area.
Not very grey at all actually. They have to help. Same as lawyers cannot refuse legal aid.
In practice though, both professions simply refer the person to someone who can.
Bit of a bitch in rural areas where there might only be one quack.

[mangell6]

IMHO.. How ridiculous to narrow on SOME medical issues that they will and wont do based on their beliefs.. If you dont want to do the whole job, then dont do ANY of it!!..


GPs also apply 'descretion' to their own personal 'preferences' regarding 'cures' and 'specialists'.

preference = based on personal opinion and experience.
cures = latest mag sez (insert brand here) will cure (insert malady).
specialists = 'currently accepted by the scientific community' and 'not currently accepted by the scientific community'.

Mike

[onearmedbandit]

I think that he does have the right. This isn't treatment, this is prevention. If you decide to bash yourself in the head with a hammer and then seek treatment, sure the doctor may think you're an idiot, but they will still patch you up. However, seeking contraception, be it prior to conception or post, really isn't treatment, it's prevention. And from his religous viewpoint (and I rank alongside the least religous people on this site) that goes against his belief.

Don't like it, go to another doctor. I'm sure he'll suggest an alternative.

[SixPackBack]

Fucken religous zelot should be struck off:argh:

[M1CRO]

I missed the show and I might be wrong.. BUT, didn't he have a patient list and THEN decided to not "prevent" pregnancies??

So, in other words, he was a "normal" doctor one day, woke up one morning and then decided to change his belief? I wonder if next week he will wake up and change back :weird:

[James Deuce]

I do. They are there to help me, not judge me.
If they have a belief against my wishes, it is their responsibility to make sure I have access to another who will help me with my medical decisions.


Not very grey at all actually. They have to help. Same as lawyers cannot refuse legal aid.
In practice though, both professions simply refer the person to someone who can.
Bit of a bitch in rural areas where there might only be one quack.

it's a free country and you don't have to use him as a Doctor. Plus, the whole thing is a truly GREAT piece of marketing for his business.

By the same token any kosher Jewish restaurant is judging you and placing you into the Gentile category. Bet it doesn't stop you eating the chicken soup though.

[Paul in NZ]

I have no problem with a Catholic doctor sticking to the letter of his beliefs.

I'd agree with you if the Doctor was performing a normal 'competitive' service.

However, the issue is clouded by the state funding for a part of the service he performs (the state and religion being seperate being an important fundemental of our system) AND that doctors are the biggest / richest / protectionist trade union out there.

It's ONLY fair if the women have a viable alternative open to them.

In our case here in Paraparaumu for instance it's feckin' hard to get even an appointment let alone get enrolled in a decent practise.

If the medical council and authorities allow more practicioners and a more competitive environment, fair enough but you can't have your monopoly and morals as well...

Cheers

Just a thought....

[mangell6]

Does a mechanic have the right to not service my car when I asked him to?



As a side note, the GPs on the Kapiti Coast are not taking any new patients.

[madboy]

I believe he has a right to observe his religious beliefs. Where I struggle is how he just woke up to the idea after how many years of practice? I think so long as his patients have a viable alternative, then fair enough. If he was a solo rural GP then I would have a problem.

I'm sure no one is too concerned they get a day or two off at Easter. Nobody minds those religious beliefs that were transferred into government policy.

[Ixion]

Does a mechanic have the right to not service my car when I asked him to?



As a side note, the GPs on the Kapiti Coast are not taking any new patients.

Distinguo. Access to contraceptives is by law limited, you can only get them by applying to a GP. Physicians , having secured a monopoly, state backed , right of prescription should not then use that monopolistic power to leverage their own personal religious opinions. She who applies to a physician for the prescription of contraceptives (which is not medical treatment since she has no ailment) applies to the physician not in his personal capacity, but as agent of the State.

[mangell6]

Does this also apply to a WOF? Access to a supplier is by law limited, therefore they are acting as an agent of the state.

A mechanic can refuse your request to have your vehicle looked at for a WOF by said mechanic.

[James Deuce]

By allowing an ostensibly free education system to be replaced with a student loan system we lost the opportunity to demand that the products of "our" education system provide us with a particular service that meets a particualr specification.

We've venerated Doctors for far too long, and placed them on a pedestal of their own construction. Then we create a society that insists on the rights of the individual and are shocked when an individual Doctor with a belief system that is at odds with that post modern 200 pound Gorilla called "my rights", decides to run his busniess based on his individual beliefs.

Bugger. Shame you can't really have it both ways isn't it?

Contraceptives aren't a treatment generally. They are used as a treatment for some medical conditions as they can be used as a hormone production "smoother". If you know a woman with endometriosis, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Family Planning have clinics in some centres (http://www.fpanz.org.nz/SITE_Default/SITE_fpanz/SITE_find_a_clinic/default.asp) and prescribing contraceptives isn't the sole preserve of GPs. An Ob-Gyn can prescribe them too. There is always a solution to a problem, and good on this bloke in Nelson for having the balls to stand by his convictions. There are precious few left like him.

I don't have to agree that what he is doing is right, but he should be allowed the room in a "free" society to run his business how he likes.

[Ixion]

Does this also apply to a WOF? Access to a supplier is by law limited, therefore they are acting as an agent of the state.

A mechanic can refuse your request to have your vehicle looked at for a WOF by said mechanic.

Good analogy. But surely a WOF agent who refused to issue WoFs because of his religious opinions would simply cease to be a WOF agent. Analogously, a GP giving up his practicing certificate and become (say) a homeopath.

[mangell6]

A better analogy would be a mechanic who is a religous Ford person refusing to give WOFs to Commodores

The end result is that each would loose 'custom' and eventually their erspective 'practices' would cease to exist, go out of business.

PS What is Jim2 talking about? :)

[James Deuce]

People who expect a banana when they pay for a raisin.

[Ixion]

A better analogy would be a mechanic who is a religous Ford person refusing to give WOFs to Commodores

The end result is that each would loose 'custom' and eventually their erspective 'practices' would cease to exist, go out of business.

PS What is Jim2 talking about? :)

Well, a Ford dealership might refuse to test a Holden, suggesting the owner go to a Holden dealership.I think I need to reconsider my position. Damn I hate it when that happens.

[Skyryder]

Distinguo. Access to contraceptives is by law limited, you can only get them by applying to a GP. Physicians , having secured a monopoly, state backed , right of prescription should not then use that monopolistic power to leverage their own personal religious opinions. She who applies to a physician for the prescription of contraceptives (which is not medical treatment since she has no ailment) applies to the physician not in his personal capacity, but as agent of the State.

I think I'll stop posting. That's the second time tonight that you have taken the words right out of my mouth or in this case my hands. However there are some interesting points that arise. First is the defination of patient and secondly has a contract been entered into by patient and doctor. I have no idea at what point a person becomes a patient. Do they become a patient simply by walking into the consulting room or does some medical advice have to be given? I ask this question only to ascertain if a contract has taken place. If a contract has taken place between the patient and doctor, on the basis that the patient is in the consulting room then I would argue that the doctor would not have the right to refuse the contraceptives on moral or religous grounds. However if no contract has taken place, then the fact that the doctor is an agent of the state in reguards to dispensing contraception, he is under no obligation to dispense contraceptives. Any lawyers out there on this one?

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

PS What is Jim2 talking about? :)

No idea. I think it was about bannanas and raisins. It's all a bit fruity to me.

Skyryder

[Ixion]

Perhaps I may take higher ground . (Since my argument to date is looking somewhat dodgy)

Jehovah's Witnesses (I think) object to blood transfusions on religious grounds, and will not accept them for themselves. Should a surgeon who is a Jehovah's Witness be allowed to refuse to permit a blood transfusion for a haemoraging patient - the patient NOT being a Jehovah's Witness ? If the patient dies as a result of being denied the transfusion would the Medical council support the surgeon's refusal? Would you be happy if someone dear to you (or you yourself) were wheeled bleeding into Emergency, and the only surgeon on duty were the said Jehovah's Witness ? You could of course avail yourself of the benefits of competition and have said loved one put back into the ambulance and transferred to another hospital.

[mangell6]

Not a lawyer but when I go to a Doctor for a sore shoulder they complete their work and decide that they cannot 'cure' me but they refer me to another person, usually a physio.

Assuming that the Doctoe and I have entered into a non-verbal agreement, provide said cure for shoulder, has the doctor broken that agreement by referring me to another person?

[thehollowmen]

Yes. Any medical practitioner has the legal right to refuse treatment on ethical or religious grounds. But it's a grey area.

On the other hand, the doctor must also refer to another doctor who can provide treatment.

[onearmedbandit]

Perhaps I may take higher ground . (Since my argument to date is looking somewhat dodgy)

Jehovah's Witnesses (I think) object to blood transfusions on religious grounds, and will not accept them for themselves. Should a surgeon who is a Jehovah's Witness be allowed to refuse to permit a blood transfusion for a haemoraging patient - the patient NOT being a Jehovah's Witness ? If the patient dies as a result of being denied the transfusion would the Medical council support the surgeon's refusal? Would you be happy if someone dear to you (or you yourself) were wheeled bleeding into Emergency, and the only surgeon on duty were the said Jehovah's Witness ? You could of course avail yourself of the benefits of competition and have said loved one put back into the ambulance and transferred to another hospital.

Emergency situation compared to a non-emergency situation. Also being a surgeon (especially in triage) would have meant a lot of training and experience in blood-transfusions, so this is issue would have come up well before he/she was the only doctor on duty. Also it is a doctors duty to save a life regardless, it's not to prescribe contraception.

I really don't care too much about this whole situation, there are other doctors that can provide the services that he is not willing to. I think it is a storm in a teacup.

[Lou Girardin]

The Doctor has notified all his patients of his decision and has suggested other Doctors to help them. He's done all he needs to. He's entitled to practice as his beliefs lead him.

[Biff]

Not very grey at all actually. They have to help. Same as lawyers cannot refuse legal aid.


A certain person very close to me is a medical doctor - According to this person, who checked up on this very topic 30 minutes ago, and has practised medicine for the last 10 ish years - there is no legal obligation for a medical practitioner (in the UK, so I guess it applies here) to carry out their duties if it conflicts with their own religious or ethical beliefs. That's why it's a grey are, because how do you define an ethical belief?


On the other hand, the doctor must also refer to another doctor who can provide treatment.

Yup.

[El Dopa]

People who expect a banana when they pay for a raisin.

Am I correct in thinking you mean something along the lines of 'pay peanuts, get treated by Dr Monkey'?

[curious george]

Should a surgeon who is a Jehovah's Witness be allowed to refuse to permit a blood transfusion for a haemoraging patient - the patient NOT being a Jehovah's Witness ? If the patient dies as a result of being denied

I know a bit about this.....
If a patient refuses a blood transfusion because they are a JW, I cannot give them one. If I do, I can up for a power of shit, including assault.

The surgeon cannot deny the transfusion based on religious belief.

So if a Dr, (Dr Mormon, in this case), refuses to chart blood when needed, and a patient dies, (assuming they needed it, and wanted it), it is the doctor who has done wrong. No arguement. Not a legal leg to stand on. In reality, somebody else would have charted it, thus avoiding the problem.
Patient's rights are paramont.
Reality is, the JW Dr's I know are pretty pragmatic, stick to their own beliefs, and practice with the patients best MEDICAL intention in mind.

[FROSTY]

holey cow you lot -has New Zealand really become this PC
The guy wont prescribe the pill. SO BLOODY WHAT??????
The ladies concerned have other doctors they can go to
Hey I refuse to get finance for customers from loan shark type finance companies it goes against what I believe in --if the customers want to go to those places themselves they I'm not gonna stop em

[curious george]

SO BLOODY WHAT??????
The ladies concerned have other doctors they can go to
Slight difference here Frosty is in some areas you can only go to one GP because there is only one GP.
It's not like a car yard with 2000 different ones in AUckland.
Patient continuity counts for a lot as well. It not as easy as walking up to any old GP and demanding pills.
History will have to be taken, old medical records located, discussion about life and stuff etc....
Good on the guy for sticking to his beliefs, but me thinks there is alterior motives for this decision, not altruistic ones.
Also, I dont pay you to sell cars and give advice about them, but we do with GP, through the Gummermint, like the cops. You make your own rules largely, and if you make the right ones, your business does better.
There is a principle at stake here which has wider implications than contraception

[heavenly.talker]

It is a bloody worry that womens access to choice in regards to their health, fertlity, and abortion is now starting to be questioned by men in 1st world countries!
USA has a shit storm about abortion,NZ now has a shit storm about some guy who refuses to prescribe the pill.

Has the womens movement been for nothing if the youth of today will take this sitting down?

Religion has its place for some, but disenpowering women for all intents and purposes in the name of god is absolute crap!!!!

Grrrr how would you feel if your daughter, sister, mother,wife was refused a script for contraception because some god driven GP thought he had the right to make judgements about her decisions.

Concerned about this trend...you bet.

In this day of the knowledge revolution fundamentalism is something I am astounded by!

By the way, I'm not a feminazzi, I do like men (lots), and I'm not on pill. This is not so much about women but about responsible lives.

How would you feel as males if the women you were shagging said "opps we are now going to have a baby because my doctor is catholic and told me it is a sin to use contraception" when you assumed she was protected...and don't try and tell me that you always ride in wets...because that is just crap for the majority of men.

Even catholics use contraception for goodness sake...it is a far bigger crime to bring children into the world who are unwanted and who are not cared for.

[heavenly.talker]

It is a bloody worry that womens access to choice in regards to their health, fertlity, and abortion is now starting to be questioned by men in 1st world countries!
USA has a shit storm about abortion,NZ now has a shit storm about some guy who refuses to prescribe the pill.

Has the womens movement been for nothing if the youth of today will take this sitting down?

Religion has its place for some, but disenpowering women for all intents and purposes in the name of god is absolute crap!!!!

Grrrr how would you feel if your daughter, sister, mother,wife was refused a script for contraception because some god driven GP thought he had the right to make judgements about her decisions.

Concerned about this trend...you bet.

In this day of the knowledge revolution fundamentalism is something I am astounded by!

By the way, I'm not a feminazzi, I do like men (lots), and I'm not on pill. This is not so much about women but about responsible lives.

How would you feel as males if the women you were shagging said "opps we are now going to have a baby because my doctor is catholic and told me it is a sin to use contraception" when you assumed she was protected...and don't try and tell me that you always ride in wets...because that is just crap for the majority of men.

Even catholics use contraception for goodness sake...it is a far bigger crime to bring children into the world who are unwanted and who are not cared for.


Hmmmm me thinks I will take some time to cool off...see you on the flip side :brick: :o

[Skyryder]

However if no contract has taken place, then the fact that the doctor is an agent of the state in reguards to dispensing contraception, he is under no obligation to dispense contraceptives. Any lawyers out there on this one?

Skyryder

There's a correction needed here. Just checked with some legal people I know. The doctor when dispensing contraceptives is not an agent of the state. They may have a monopoly on supplying certain contraceptives in line with statute or govtment polocy but that in no way makes them an agent of the state. I still hold the same view that their morals should not be used to prevent a patient from using a contraceptive as she is entilted to under law. This is not about choice but patients rights.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

There was a letter in the Chch Press today 18/10/05 abotu this. Seems the doctor was a Middle Eastern typ.

Skyryder

[Ixion]

..
Patient's rights are paramont.
Reality is, the JW Dr's I know are pretty pragmatic, stick to their own beliefs, and practice with the patients best MEDICAL intention in mind.

Not intending any reflection on any JWs who are doctors, or suggesting that they would not put the patient first. Just using them as an example that there are other (non RC) doctors who must sometimes do things which are for their pateients benefit, even though those things may conflict with their own religious beliefs. As you say.

[Beemer]

I had to go into hospital yesterday for a minor operation and was made to take a bloody pregnancy test! Despite telling the nurse I was not pregnant, nor had I ever been, and showing her the pill packet I was told to bring with me, I was still required to take the test - and then charged for it on my bill! So that hospital is getting a shitty letter from me today - do they test EVERY female who comes in, and why? Surely if a woman says she is NOT pregnant and signs something to that effect, why is it necessary?

[ManDownUnder]

I had to go into hospital yesterday for a minor operation and was made to take a bloody pregnancy test! Despite telling the nurse I was not pregnant, nor had I ever been, and showing her the pill packet I was told to bring with me, I was still required to take the test - and then charged for it on my bill! So that hospital is getting a shitty letter from me today - do they test EVERY female who comes in, and why? Surely if a woman says she is NOT pregnant and signs something to that effect, why is it necessary?

Agreed 100% - it is BS.

Forcing a service on you and then charging you for it??? I don't think so. That's called a levy or a tax.

As for the original topic, I have no problems with a doc sticking to their beliefs and acting (within the law) accordingly.

The only thing I ask is that they make their conditions of practice know before any chargeable activity is engaged in.

I.e. before I have to pay you money, tell me you're not going to give me what I want. To do otherwaise is BS>

aaaaaaaaaaa rant over.

[heavenly.talker]

... was made to take a bloody pregnancy test! Despite telling the nurse I was not pregnant, nor had I ever been, and showing her the pill packet I was told to bring with me, I was still required to take the test - and then charged for it on my bill!


Funny thing about that is if you were pregnant you wouldn't have been charged for the test!

They will not pay for negative results but a positive results falls under pre-natal care!!! How weird is that.

Although...re: the insistence for the test...I do know a person who went in to get her tubes tied and was told to take a test before the op. She found out she was 4 months pregnant at that time!

[Beemer]

Funny thing about that is if you were pregnant you wouldn't have been charged for the test!

They will not pay for negative results but a positive results falls under pre-natal care!!! How weird is that.

Although...re: the insistence for the test...I do know a person who went in to get her tubes tied and was told to take a test before the op. She found out she was 4 months pregnant at that time!

I would still have been charged - I was in a private hospital to have a cyst removed (and no, it wasn't on an ovary or anything fertility related) and I got charged for EVERYTHING they used on me - needles, sutures, oxygen, etc. What I am angry about is being charged for a test that was not necessary and one that I felt was an imposition. If it were required prior to surgery, my specialist would have ordered it along with the blood tests - and it would have been free. If I were being operated on for anything relating to fertility or sterilisation, I would fully expect to be tested. I wasn't, and to my mind it was as relevant to my surgery as being tested for drugs or HIV - both of those tests would come back negative too!

As for the doctor not prescribing the pill - as long as he gives the women other options, I don't really have a problem with it. Having said that, my first doctor was a Catholic and he had no problem with it, so I think it must be a personal decision for this particular doctor.

[InDeSkyz]

In regards to the doc not prescribing the pill - there is always the morning after pill (now known as emergency pill I think).

Beemer - should of told them you are gay or have been celebite (sp) for the last 3 years or something.

[ManDownUnder]

In regards to the doc not prescribing the pill - there is always the morning after pill (now known as emergency pill I think).

If a doc refuses to prescribe the pill - wouldn't the Morning After Pill be equally objectionable? (not having a go - but in my mind it would be "worse" from that moral viewpoint)

[ManDownUnder]

On the flip side of the argument though... doesn't NZ have one of the highest rates of the clap going around too???

Encouraging rubber instead of the pill might not be such a bad thing...

[Indiana_Jones]

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
There are Hindus, and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammed, but,
I've never been one of them...

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I were born.
And the one thing they say about Catholics,
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on,
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came.
Because...

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

:whistle: :p

-Indy

[curious george]

I had to go into hospital yesterday for a minor operation and was made to take a bloody pregnancy test! Despite telling the nurse I was not pregnant, nor had I ever been, and showing her the pill packet I was told to bring with me, I was still required to take the test - and then charged for it on my bill!
It is necessary, because if you were pregnant, it could change the way you are looked after, and/or even your surgery.

It's a sad fact, but patients, even very nice patients like you lie sometimes.
You wouldnt believe the ammount of virgins and 'sorry, couldn't possibly be pregnant' and so on that are indeed pregnant. Amazing.

The point to my story is - Sometimes people don't know they are pregnant. Sometimes people dont want to be pregnant, so maybe it will just go away.
Either way, unless proven otherwise, you might be pregnant. And if you went to a private hospital, you will be charged for the pleasure.
It ain't for fun, but for the hospitals protection, and the possible baby's protection.

[Lou Girardin]

Religion has its place for some, but disenpowering women for all intents and purposes in the name of god is absolute crap!!!!
.

It appears though that it is Government policy to discriminate against women
because of cultural practices.

[kerryg]

I really don't care too much about this whole situation, there are other doctors that can provide the services that he is not willing to. I think it is a storm in a teacup.


I wholeheartedly agree. To talk of disempowering women etc etc is to generalise from the particular. One doctor does not prescribe the pill. Therefore women are disempowered. Come again? How many doctors are there? How many other types of contraception are there anyway?

At a slight tangent, since when anyway was it a patient's "right" to get a prophylactic treatment from a doctor for an elective act? See Doc, I'm thinking of intentionally exposing myself to (asbestos/mad cow disease/mustard gas/pregnancy/ name your hazard), can you give me something to prevent it? If he says no think it falls into a different category than denying treatment to an unwell person.

[curious george]

It seems this whole thing is a bit of a storm in a tea cup anyway.....
There are other options to all the women concerned, so nobody has had anything taken away from them.
If he didn't offer alternatives, there might have been a bit more of a problem, but it seems he was just getting out of the contraceptive game...
Move along here people...... bit of a non-story really. Musta been a quiet day at the paper.

[mangell6]

It seems this whole thing is a bit of a storm in a tea cup anyway.....

The issue that I raised was about "a gender-unspecified doctor" having a choice, and the great mahjority agree that an individual does indeed have that right.



Move along here people...... bit of a non-story really. Musta been a quiet day at the paper.

News media saw a chance to sell more newspapers "non-european male doctor allowing teenagers to get pregnant", I was more curious about others reaction to the real issue, which was hidden in the media hype.

Thanks to all who have contributed and remember it is about the individuals right to ..... and their responsibility for . . . . . .

Mike