Does A Doctor

**Ixion** · 17th October 2005, 19:45

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 17th October 2005, 20:48

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** · 17th October 2005, 20:55

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 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** · 17th October 2005, 20:57

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 17th October 2005, 21:12

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** · 17th October 2005, 21:13

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

**Ixion** · 17th October 2005, 21:18

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 17th October 2005, 21:23

Originally Posted by Ixion

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** · 17th October 2005, 21:26

Originally Posted by mangell6

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** · 17th October 2005, 21:33

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** · 17th October 2005, 21:44

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** · 17th October 2005, 21:52

Originally Posted by Biff

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** · 17th October 2005, 23:10

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 18th October 2005, 11:19

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** · 18th October 2005, 11:32

Originally Posted by curious george

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?

Originally Posted by thehollowmen

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

Yup.