Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

If I were President, you'd be Attorney-General.

Reply
Report this post

How far would these rulings go? If a Muslim were employed in food service, would he be allowed to refuse to serve pork? It seems to me that a physician who thought he would be putting his own soul in danger by performing a procedure prohibited by HIS religion should be respected. If he refused to perform a procedure prohibited by the religion practiced by the PATIENT it would be altogether different. We have long held conscientious objection a valid argument for not serving in combat in the military. How would this be any different? The root of both exceptions is the argument that a believer is putting his own soul in jeapordy. We are on a slippery slope here. We can't water down our protections for religious freedoms. There are no shortages of doctors willing to perform procedures. A woman turned down by a doctor would have no problem finding one willing to do the procedure. What woman would want to force a doctor to do a procedure he is not comfortable in performing? What could possibly be more awkward or potentially unsafe?

Reply
Report this post

Whoa...I think Ms. Estrich's comments would have been welcomed under Hitler and Stalin. Wrap the Constitution around some sodomite women...and then turn around and say that a man dedicated to medical service, the decades of training it takes to get there and a desire to help women in their most exciting and yet delicate time in their lives: should be disqualified or look elsewhere unless they want/willing to kill the unborn?! Yes...the first amendment means freedom of speech...also action... and Ms. Estrich I am grateful you are no more than selfish bard spinning yarns.

Reply
Report this post

Why do doctors have to treat anyone if they choose not to? Not just sexual deviates. Do lawyers have to accept every case?

Reply
Report this post

"You shouldn't become a gynecologist if you don't want to provide gynecological services" That's profoundly clueless. LEGALITY and MORALLY are two different things. During Prohibition, cops were busting gin mills then coming home and smoking a joint. Now they bust pot dealers then come home and have a beer. What changed? Did we discover that marijuana is a more dangerous drug than alcohol? No, not by a long shot. As with many laws, the change was sociopolitical rather than moral or rational. Law is often capricious in that way. What if you become a doctor then the law changes? What if euthanasia becomes legal, but you consider it murder? You're supposed to start murdering people just because the lawyers now say it's OK? No, you say, "I'm sorry, but you'll need to find another doctor." Abortion is an issues where there can be no middle ground. Is an embryo a human being? At what point does it *become* a human being? At conception? At birth? There is no scientific way to answer this question. It's a personal, moral, religious question. I'm pro-choice, but I'm sympathetic to those who are not. How could you not be? If you truly believe a month old fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder. Period. Why should a doctor be forced to commit what he considers murder? Restaurants can refuse service if you're not wearing a tie, but a doctor can't refuse to do something he believes will damn his immortal soul? There's no LEGAL reason why a plastic surgeon would HAVE to refuse treatment to someone like Michael Jackson. But if a surgeons feels a patient is addicted to surgery, doing it for mentally unhealthy reasons, is doing more harm than good, etc. -- the surgeon can refuse service. It's a MORAL decision. "Sorry, I can't in good conscious do this operation, you'll need to find another doctor." What kind of country does Susan want to live in, where people don't have that right? It illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, etc. In other words, you can't say, "I normally perform procedure X, but I refuse to serve you because you're a woman/Jew/Catholic/black/etc." That's NOT the same as saying, "I won't perform procedure X on ANY patient, because it violates my moral principles." Applying the same principles equally to all, regardless of race, color, or creed is the opposite of discrimination.

Reply
Report this post

"You shouldn't become a gynecologist if you don't want to provide gynecological services" Huh? This is a profoundly embarrassing, illogical and morally obtuse argument for an intelligent person to make. I shouldn't be allowed to be a gynecologist if I'm not willing to perform abortions? Really? It makes me question those times I agree with you.

Reply
Report this post

Ms Estrich has made a mistake when she says that Christian Scientists oppose bliood tranfusions. I believe that she is confusing them with Jehovah Witness religion. I don't know if you would ever find a doctor that was a Christian Scientist. A medical profession would be incompatible with their religion.

Reply
Report this post

So what next, restaurants can't refuse service anymore? Al

Reply
Report this post

Susan, Susan, Susan...we all know how people get pregnant...including the plaintiff in the case you wrote about (three times apparently). Why is she upset that she cannot make someone perform an elective procedure against their will? Surely she could have found a physician who was sympathetic to her situation,lesbian or not, rather than attempt to squeeze water from a stone. It is attitudes like the one you are espousing that further erode the most important element of medical care, namely the relationship between the patient and the physician. It would seem by your position that the physician should just shut up and do the 'plumbing' job. Who was going to follow the pregnancy and then deliver the child? The woman in question needs to find a physician that makes sense for her well being, unless of course she was intentionally looking for a test case to push the legal frontier in this regard. And let us be accurate counselor. Infertility is practiced by physicians who practice obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN). Transfusions may be ordered by many types of physicians including hematologists but not exclusively by hematologists. In fact, pathologists generally run blood banks, not hematologists.