Doctor religious exemption hypothetical.

[geauxtohell]

HYPOTHETICAL #2

You are involved in a car accident when a drunk driver runs a red light and strikes your driver's side door.

As a result, several of your bones are broken and you are taken to the ER. You are quickly stabilized and are now in excruciating 10/10 pain.

The Doctor is from Syria and tells you that he will take good care of you. You ask him for something for the pain. He explains to you that you are the first patient he has seen since recently returning from the Haj where he had a religious awakening in his Muslim faith. As a result, he can't give you Morphine because he believes using or helping others to use mind altering substances violates his religious beliefs and he is now determined to be a good Muslim.

He further explains that instead of morphine, he will give you ketorlac (NSAID) for pain control. Unfortunately, this doesn't do the trick and you lie in agony for four hours until the orthopedic team is able to admit you.

Does the Doctor have a right to refuse to adequately control your pain if he thinks doing so would violate his religious beliefs?

The jury will award the victim millions.

So, you think this physician should not be able to refuse?

 

[Katzndogz]

All these fantastic hypotheticals getting more and more outlandish by the moment are proving nothing but how insane people can truly be. And it is all to justify killling babies! If we don't support killing babies, we support withholding pain medication for broken bones. Liberals would have no problem whatsoever with a doctor telling a patient that due to their age and cost of procedure an elderly person should not have a pacemaker. In fact, the annointed messiah told a woman that instead of treatment, her mother should take a pill instead. Is it made better because the justification is political instead of religious?

 

[Dr.House]

If you can't address the hypothetical, then tap out.

Also, I said there was one doctor covering the ER.

Ever been in a rural hospital at 2 am?

Don't get all butthurt because you fail at creating a realistic hypothetical, adding more and more issues designed to steer the answer to your preconceived ideal...

Missourian outlines a perfect alternative to your hypo....

Again. If you can't address the hypothetical......

Again, if you create a hypothetical, then keep adding and changing shit around to make it the most unrealistic and unlikely situation ever, you've already failed...

Why am I not surprised that you're just being an asshat about it...

Congrats on your fail, though...

 

[Trajan]

Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:

The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.

The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.

However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.

Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.

lets cut to the chase, basically you’re asking if we feel a Doctor religious tenets should override the Hippocratic oath.


Answer; no.

If he she were to adopt a religious philosophy that usurps such, they should find another line of work.


Are you going ask about abortions next?

 

[geauxtohell]

Don't get all butthurt because you fail at creating a realistic hypothetical, adding more and more issues designed to steer the answer to your preconceived ideal...

Missourian outlines a perfect alternative to your hypo....

Again. If you can't address the hypothetical......

Again, if you create a hypothetical, then keep adding and changing shit around to make it the most unrealistic and unlikely situation ever, you've already failed...

Why am I not surprised that you're just being an asshat about it...

Congrats on your fail, though...

More burning of the bandwidth......

 

[geauxtohell]

Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:

The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.

The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.

However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.

Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.

lets cut to the chase, basically you’re asking if we feel a Doctor religious tenets should override the Hippocratic oath.


Answer; no.

If he she were to adopt a religious philosophy that usurps such, they should find another line of work.


Are you going ask about abortions next?

1.). I am not being coy in this thread. The OP notes that this is in response to the religious exemptions surrounding emergency contraception.

2.). The Hippocratic oath is not legally binding. Many medical schools no longer administer it or administer the updated "lasagna oath (seriously)" and many students, on religious grounds, refuse to take any oath.

3.). Thanks for weighing in on the matter. I appreciate it.

 

[PredFan]

HYPOTHETICAL #2

You are involved in a car accident when a drunk driver runs a red light and strikes your driver's side door.

As a result, several of your bones are broken and you are taken to the ER. You are quickly stabilized and are now in excruciating 10/10 pain.

The Doctor is from Syria and tells you that he will take good care of you. You ask him for something for the pain. He explains to you that you are the first patient he has seen since recently returning from the Haj where he had a religious awakening in his Muslim faith. As a result, he can't give you Morphine because he believes using or helping others to use mind altering substances violates his religious beliefs and he is now determined to be a good Muslim.

He further explains that instead of morphine, he will give you ketorlac (NSAID) for pain control. Unfortunately, this doesn't do the trick and you lie in agony for four hours until the orthopedic team is able to admit you.

Does the Doctor have a right to refuse to adequately control your pain if he thinks doing so would violate his religious beliefs?

As long as he gets me another doctor to prescribe it then I don't care. I have a right to demand that another physician be brought on board my case and can "fire" the attending physician at any time. I don't know if he has a right to do what he's doing or not but if he doesn't I'm calling for the Hospital administrator and getting what I need.

 

[PredFan]

Oh, Wow. Another 1 doctor hospital.

I wonder why my small town hospital had 5 ER doctors working the night my wife dislocated her elbow? They sure could save money if they let 4 of them go.

You are quickly joining the ranks of the lame who want to argue the hypothetical as opposed to takings crack at the larger question.

The more you narrow your hypothetical down to try to eliminate all possible responses, the more unlikely your scenario becomes.

 

[geauxtohell]

All these fantastic hypotheticals getting more and more outlandish by the moment are proving nothing but how insane people can truly be. And it is all to justify killling babies! If we don't support killing babies, we support withholding pain medication for broken bones. Liberals would have no problem whatsoever with a doctor telling a patient that due to their age and cost of procedure an elderly person should not have a pacemaker. In fact, the annointed messiah told a woman that instead of treatment, her mother should take a pill instead. Is it made better because the justification is political instead of religious?

You just made a dubious logical leap that assigns sentiments to me that I don't believe.

Again, it takes far more effort and energy to birch about the content of a thread than to simply take a stand on the issue.

 

[geauxtohell]

HYPOTHETICAL #2

You are involved in a car accident when a drunk driver runs a red light and strikes your driver's side door.

As a result, several of your bones are broken and you are taken to the ER. You are quickly stabilized and are now in excruciating 10/10 pain.

The Doctor is from Syria and tells you that he will take good care of you. You ask him for something for the pain. He explains to you that you are the first patient he has seen since recently returning from the Haj where he had a religious awakening in his Muslim faith. As a result, he can't give you Morphine because he believes using or helping others to use mind altering substances violates his religious beliefs and he is now determined to be a good Muslim.

He further explains that instead of morphine, he will give you ketorlac (NSAID) for pain control. Unfortunately, this doesn't do the trick and you lie in agony for four hours until the orthopedic team is able to admit you.

Does the Doctor have a right to refuse to adequately control your pain if he thinks doing so would violate his religious beliefs?

As long as he gets me another doctor to prescribe it then I don't care. I have a right to demand that another physician be brought on board my case and can "fire" the attending physician at any time. I don't know if he has a right to do what he's doing or not but if he doesn't I'm calling for the Hospital administrator and getting what I need.

Thanks.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh, Wow. Another 1 doctor hospital.

I wonder why my small town hospital had 5 ER doctors working the night my wife dislocated her elbow? They sure could save money if they let 4 of them go.

You are quickly joining the ranks of the lame who want to argue the hypothetical as opposed to takings crack at the larger question.

The more you narrow your hypothetical down to try to eliminate all possible responses, the more unlikely your scenario becomes.

The only responses I've rejected where the ones that were spent bitching about the content of the question as opposed to trying to answer it.

Again, it's a hypothetical question.

And using a hypothetical to prompt debate is hardly a shocking concept.

 

[PredFan]

HYPOTHETICAL #2

You are involved in a car accident when a drunk driver runs a red light and strikes your driver's side door.

As a result, several of your bones are broken and you are taken to the ER. You are quickly stabilized and are now in excruciating 10/10 pain.

The Doctor is from Syria and tells you that he will take good care of you. You ask him for something for the pain. He explains to you that you are the first patient he has seen since recently returning from the Haj where he had a religious awakening in his Muslim faith. As a result, he can't give you Morphine because he believes using or helping others to use mind altering substances violates his religious beliefs and he is now determined to be a good Muslim.

He further explains that instead of morphine, he will give you ketorlac (NSAID) for pain control. Unfortunately, this doesn't do the trick and you lie in agony for four hours until the orthopedic team is able to admit you.

Does the Doctor have a right to refuse to adequately control your pain if he thinks doing so would violate his religious beliefs?

The jury will award the victim millions.

This is why no hospital administrator would allow this to happen. Any nurse administrator, who would be available in site 24-7, would get another doctor or call the medical director at home (if it's in the middle of the night) and have another doctor come in and take care of the situation.

 

[syrenn]

Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:

The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.

The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.

However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.

Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.

Same question wrapped up differently....

The Dr works for the hospital... and has ZERO right to refuse medical aid to anyone for ANY reason....regardless of what god he bows to.

The DR's job.. of which he is paid to preform.. is to treat patients who walk through the door. If he has a problem with that for what ever reason...he needs to get out of medicine and start a private practice where he can roll chicken bones at people to save them.

 

[geauxtohell]

HYPOTHETICAL #2

You are involved in a car accident when a drunk driver runs a red light and strikes your driver's side door.

As a result, several of your bones are broken and you are taken to the ER. You are quickly stabilized and are now in excruciating 10/10 pain.

The Doctor is from Syria and tells you that he will take good care of you. You ask him for something for the pain. He explains to you that you are the first patient he has seen since recently returning from the Haj where he had a religious awakening in his Muslim faith. As a result, he can't give you Morphine because he believes using or helping others to use mind altering substances violates his religious beliefs and he is now determined to be a good Muslim.

He further explains that instead of morphine, he will give you ketorlac (NSAID) for pain control. Unfortunately, this doesn't do the trick and you lie in agony for four hours until the orthopedic team is able to admit you.

Does the Doctor have a right to refuse to adequately control your pain if he thinks doing so would violate his religious beliefs?

The jury will award the victim millions.

This is why no hospital administrator would allow this to happen. Any nurse administrator, who would be available in site 24-7, would get another doctor or call the medical director at home (if it's in the middle of the night) and have another doctor come in and take care of the situation.

And in the time it takes that to happen, the patient is suffering.

 

[PredFan]

Imagine America as a Taliban run religion like the republican traitors are trying to create.

Their are many doctors that have sold their sole to these anti America fools and should not be allowed to practice any longer.

Do No Harm Is thrown out the window at the first smell of a payoff in the wind.

I have seen enough of these teabaggers cheering on death pannels and spitting on our vets and cannot see why anyone would want to support the GOP corporation.

what does "sole" mean? Is it hypothetical spelling? Provide proof that "do no harm" has been thrown out the window. Provide proof that "teabaggers" aka homosexual men have been cheering on death panels.. why would homosexual men want death panels for god's sake? Why would homosexual men spit on vets? Amazing We really need some substantiation of your claims before we can allow you to bash homosexual men.

You teabaggers have those answers. The third teabagger republican debate was where the people cheered on death for the sick and elderly that could not buy the ponzi scheme no coverage insurance and it was a gay military member that stood up on the stage in support of his country and was booed by the teabagger audience.

I didn't read past this.

You are dismissed as an ignorant hack.

 

[geauxtohell]

Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:

The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.

The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.

However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.

Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.

Same question wrapped up differently....

The Dr works for the hospital... and has ZERO right to refuse medical aid to anyone for ANY reason....regardless of what god he bows to.

The DR's job.. of which he is paid to preform.. is to treat patients who walk through the door. If he has a problem with that for what ever reason...he needs to get out of medicine and start a private practice where he can roll chicken bones at people to save them.

On that note, do you think physicians have the right to object to providing emergency contraception?

Thanks

 

[PredFan]

All these fantastic hypotheticals getting more and more outlandish by the moment are proving nothing but how insane people can truly be. And it is all to justify killling babies! If we don't support killing babies, we support withholding pain medication for broken bones. Liberals would have no problem whatsoever with a doctor telling a patient that due to their age and cost of procedure an elderly person should not have a pacemaker. In fact, the annointed messiah told a woman that instead of treatment, her mother should take a pill instead. Is it made better because the justification is political instead of religious?

I'm pro-choice but I still agree. These are very ridiculous hypotheticals.

 

[syrenn]

The doctor is in the wrong. He should do transfusion then retire form practicing medicine. He did take the oath to treat patents, that he has resently converted cannot be an excuse for him to allow a patent to die, not even his God would look kindly on breaking ones oath and costing a life

the oath is to do no harm..... not to treat.

 

[PredFan]

You are quickly joining the ranks of the lame who want to argue the hypothetical as opposed to takings crack at the larger question.

The more you narrow your hypothetical down to try to eliminate all possible responses, the more unlikely your scenario becomes.

The only responses I've rejected where the ones that were spent bitching about the content of the question as opposed to trying to answer it.

Again, it's a hypothetical question.

And using a hypothetical to prompt debate is hardly a shocking concept.

No it isn't a shocking concept, just usually the hypothetical is something that might actually happen. Again, there really is not point in a hypothetical that would never occur in real life.

 

[syrenn]

Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:

The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.

The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.

However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.

Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.

Same question wrapped up differently....

The Dr works for the hospital... and has ZERO right to refuse medical aid to anyone for ANY reason....regardless of what god he bows to.

The DR's job.. of which he is paid to preform.. is to treat patients who walk through the door. If he has a problem with that for what ever reason...he needs to get out of medicine and start a private practice where he can roll chicken bones at people to save them.

On that note, do you think physicians have the right to object to providing emergency contraception?

Thanks

Same answer..... no. The have zero right not to preform what the hospital is there to preform.


They are paid to do a job...not to make religious judgements..... If preforming their job is offensive to their religious ideas... they need to work in a religious practice where you know up front what they will and wont treat...