Offline
Louis Lasagna, eh?
I've tried to come up with some kind of violation of the Hippocratic Oath, given the examples mentioned in the article, but I can't come up with one. In fact, I can't bring myself to object to any of the examples given. None are "emergency situations" (although I suppose the morning after pill could be interpreted to have been an "emergency".... I'm not sure how time-sensitive that situation might be, but given that she was in a hospital, surely she didn't even have to leave the building to find someone who would write the scrip.)
Generally speaking, I'd agree with Taurus, but I just don't see how Taurus' point applies to any of the specific situations mentioned. Again, only one of the examples could even be argued to have been an "emergency." I could be wrong, but I would assume that these issues are addressed long before any E.R. doc is ever given a patient. Now, whether they're told "if you want to work here, you do not have the freedom to make these decisions" or they're accommodated and the schedule is kept so that there are other docs on duty who will provide these services, I don't know. Maybe different facilities have different policies on that. But I can't imagine that an E.R. wouldn't be well on top of these issues in advance of a situation coming up.
Abortions: Certainly can be an emergency, and obviously can be a matter of the patient's health, even life or death. But the article doesn't make it clear that these are part of what these doctors won't do. Could be that they only refuse elective abortions or abortions of "convenience." Could be that their practice doesn't put them into situations where they're charged with performing "necessary abortions" for the health or life of the mother. The article does not say that anyone has actively refused treatment and as a result has done harm to a patient.
Sterilizations: Is there such thing as an "emergency hysterectomy" where time is of the essence to preserve a woman's health? There might be, I don't know. But outside of that one situation (where, again, you'd assume that if that were the case, they'd be in a hospital with other doctors who could do the procedure) sterilizations are usually elective, and aren't time-sensitive, right?
Contraception: While Taurus is obviously right that contraceptives aren't always solely about contraception, there are other reasons a person might take them, again, it's not like the patient can't get the scrip from another doc. And I can't imagine any kind of time-sensitive "emergency contraception scrip" scenario.
Refusing to remove ventilator or feeding tube: I suppose it could be argued that if family members are staunchly insisting that the patient be "put out of [his/her] misery" and the doc refuses, then perhaps he's "doing harm" to those family members by "prolonging their grief" or whatever, and the Hippocratic Oath as posted by BullDawg seems to indicate that this is part of the doc's charge. So maybe there's an argument there. But again, surely another doc can be called in who does not object.
Viagra for an unmarried man: Please. Just reply to one of the 20 sp@m emails you've received in the last 20 minutes. An added benefit is that it'll be like 80% cheaper or something.
In no case is the doc, by objecting and refusing, causing the patient anything more than a slight inconvenience, as far as I can tell. And like I said before, while generally I tend to lean toward Taurus' position, in cases where it's the doctor's beliefs/morals/convictions/whatever... even ones based on religion... vs. something as minor as the inconvenience of having to seek the service elsewhere, I'm going to have to come down on the side of deeply-held beliefs trumping the slight inconvenience.
Specious reasoning. I just snapped my fingers and rubbed my head. I did not get attacked by a wild boar. I bet if I did the same thing 100 more times, I would not get attacked by a wild boar. Ergo, snapping ones fingers and rubbing one's head keeps wild boars from attacking.
The "conclusions" of that kind of "research" are meaningless and just silly. You could do the same kind of research and conclude that wearing a certain brand of shoes, or spinning in a circle three times and then doing a backflip, or reciting the lyrics to When the Saints Go Marching In affects the outcomes of sugeries. Surgeons should certainly be allowed their pre-surgery rituals if it helps them, but to ask everyone to adopt any pre-surgery ritual is both rediculas and ludacris.
I've tried to come up with some kind of violation of the Hippocratic Oath, given the examples mentioned in the article, but I can't come up with one. In fact, I can't bring myself to object to any of the examples given. None are "emergency situations" (although I suppose the morning after pill could be interpreted to have been an "emergency".... I'm not sure how time-sensitive that situation might be, but given that she was in a hospital, surely she didn't even have to leave the building to find someone who would write the scrip.)
Generally speaking, I'd agree with Taurus, but I just don't see how Taurus' point applies to any of the specific situations mentioned. Again, only one of the examples could even be argued to have been an "emergency." I could be wrong, but I would assume that these issues are addressed long before any E.R. doc is ever given a patient. Now, whether they're told "if you want to work here, you do not have the freedom to make these decisions" or they're accommodated and the schedule is kept so that there are other docs on duty who will provide these services, I don't know. Maybe different facilities have different policies on that. But I can't imagine that an E.R. wouldn't be well on top of these issues in advance of a situation coming up.
Abortions: Certainly can be an emergency, and obviously can be a matter of the patient's health, even life or death. But the article doesn't make it clear that these are part of what these doctors won't do. Could be that they only refuse elective abortions or abortions of "convenience." Could be that their practice doesn't put them into situations where they're charged with performing "necessary abortions" for the health or life of the mother. The article does not say that anyone has actively refused treatment and as a result has done harm to a patient.
Sterilizations: Is there such thing as an "emergency hysterectomy" where time is of the essence to preserve a woman's health? There might be, I don't know. But outside of that one situation (where, again, you'd assume that if that were the case, they'd be in a hospital with other doctors who could do the procedure) sterilizations are usually elective, and aren't time-sensitive, right?
Contraception: While Taurus is obviously right that contraceptives aren't always solely about contraception, there are other reasons a person might take them, again, it's not like the patient can't get the scrip from another doc. And I can't imagine any kind of time-sensitive "emergency contraception scrip" scenario.
Refusing to remove ventilator or feeding tube: I suppose it could be argued that if family members are staunchly insisting that the patient be "put out of [his/her] misery" and the doc refuses, then perhaps he's "doing harm" to those family members by "prolonging their grief" or whatever, and the Hippocratic Oath as posted by BullDawg seems to indicate that this is part of the doc's charge. So maybe there's an argument there. But again, surely another doc can be called in who does not object.
Viagra for an unmarried man: Please. Just reply to one of the 20 sp@m emails you've received in the last 20 minutes. An added benefit is that it'll be like 80% cheaper or something.
In no case is the doc, by objecting and refusing, causing the patient anything more than a slight inconvenience, as far as I can tell. And like I said before, while generally I tend to lean toward Taurus' position, in cases where it's the doctor's beliefs/morals/convictions/whatever... even ones based on religion... vs. something as minor as the inconvenience of having to seek the service elsewhere, I'm going to have to come down on the side of deeply-held beliefs trumping the slight inconvenience.
Pure Energy said:
Specious reasoning. I just snapped my fingers and rubbed my head. I did not get attacked by a wild boar. I bet if I did the same thing 100 more times, I would not get attacked by a wild boar. Ergo, snapping ones fingers and rubbing one's head keeps wild boars from attacking.
The "conclusions" of that kind of "research" are meaningless and just silly. You could do the same kind of research and conclude that wearing a certain brand of shoes, or spinning in a circle three times and then doing a backflip, or reciting the lyrics to When the Saints Go Marching In affects the outcomes of sugeries. Surgeons should certainly be allowed their pre-surgery rituals if it helps them, but to ask everyone to adopt any pre-surgery ritual is both rediculas and ludacris.
Last edited:
