Trajan
conscientia mille testes
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 youre 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.
re: the oath, interesting, I didn't know that, thx.
imho, if a doctor has an issue with a procedure, then that needs to be stated up front and unequivocally, the employer can make an employment choice based on such. If the doctors 'ethics' change, then the employer must be able to maneuver under the new paradigm introduced BY the doctor, even if it means canning the doctor.