Thread: Christian Doctors Angry Over "Conscience Rule" Reversal

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Why is the legal right to all legal medicine and procedures more important than the right to your personal beliefs in cases not involving mortality?

Are drugs available by other means? i.e. without a doctor's prescription

Originally Posted by benzss

Are drugs available by other means? i.e. without a doctor's prescription

No, but there are other doctors, and if they revise in a mandatory referral clause it will be easy to find them too.

You guys are talking like every doctor is going to refuse to give contraception. They are in the vast minority. Personally, I think anybody should be able to do anything they want to their body, but not at the expense of the rights of anyone else.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

No, but there are other doctors, and if they revise in a mandatory referral clause it will be easy to find them too.

You guys are talking like every doctor is going to refuse to give contraception. They are in the vast minority. Personally, I think anybody should be able to do anything they want to their body, but not at the expense of the rights of anyone else.

Well, I'd agree with this, but essentially doctors monopolise the distribution of drugs, such as the morning after pill. Refusing a prescription surely is an imposition of the doctor's will over your own; you don't want his skills or expertise (such as when it comes to performing abortions), just his signature so you can get a drug that isn't otherwise available.

I grant you that going to another doctor is a possibility, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of blocking one person's wish to have access to a drug merely because the intermediary - the doctor - has moral views in opposition.

Originally Posted by benzss

Well, I'd agree with this, but essentially doctors monopolise the distribution of drugs, such as the morning after pill. Refusing a prescription surely is an imposition of the doctor's will over your own; you don't want his skills or expertise (such as when it comes to performing abortions), just his signature so you can get a drug that isn't otherwise available.

I grant you that going to another doctor is a possibility, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of blocking one person's wish to have access to a drug merely because the intermediary - the doctor - has moral views in opposition.

The thing is though that they aren't blocked, just temporarily inconvenienced.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

The thing is though that they aren't blocked, just temporarily inconvenienced.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by this

Originally Posted by benzss

You're going to have to explain what you mean by this

If a mandatory referral clause were added, it their doctor wouldn't give someone a medication they would have to tell you who would, then you could just go to that doctor to get it. It would be an inconvenience for the patient, but not a massive one and certainly not one greater than impugning the personal integrity of the doctor.

Originally Posted by benzss

You're going to have to explain what you mean by this

At the end of the day, nothing prevents them from getting it; they just go to a different doctor.

You're basically arguing a theoretical principle that has no practical application because it's not a real-world issue. It amounts to a politician trying to regulate morality just the same as when conservative Christians try to have their morals enforced.

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

At the end of the day, nothing prevents them from getting it; they just go to a different doctor.

You're basically arguing a theoretical principle that has no practical application because it's not a real-world issue. It amounts to a politician trying to regulate morality just the same as when conservative Christians try to have their morals enforced.

I'm not really arguing one way or another, I'm just advocating the patient having a choice. And since the doctor is the only choice available, I'm not comfortable with a doctor blocking a patient's wishes on a whim.

But yes if it's feasible that another doctor will offer a 'better' service, then it's no big deal, but I'm not familiar enough with the distribution of doctors in the US to really have an opinion.

The similar argument in the UK is that people who smoke/drink heavily/whatever should be denied NHS treatment. And my argument against that is that there is no second option available because government has socialised the entire industry, so denying the service is simply trampling all over that person's freedoms. Turns out in this thread's instance, there IS a second choice, it just might not be the easiest option.