Should medical professionals be able to choose whom they treat?

But would a Catholic doctor or nurse really refuse to treat someone who had attempted suicide or had an abortion? and I don't think a Jehovah's witness doctor would refuse to treat someone because they had had a blood transfusion.

I think all these examples are of people who might give a lecture to the patient on their previous behaviour/treatment but would still treat them.

Not that I have heard of any JW doctors, even the training must involve things they cannot accept. My JW aunt goes to a "normal" doctor, and accepts "normal" treatment, though she will not countenance a blood transfusion or a transplant.

I'm not a canon lawyer, but my understanding is that no doctor or nurse can refuse to care for anyone following any procedure. What they can do is to refuse to take part in performing an abortion. In any event an abortion will be permitted if the mother's life is in danger.

Lectures to patients would be unacceptable in any professional context.

Just read the bit suicide. No doctor would ever refuse to treat a person in distress. I think this is scare mongering.

I think the 45% statistic was genuine, though, which scares me.
Apparently it has been decided that a Catholic medic can be exempted from actually taking part in a procedure which is against their principles, but the discussion was whether they could refuse to give care to anybody on the grounds of their own principles.

Am I being a little thick here (not really wanting a response to that) - but doesn't/shouldn't taking the Hippocratic Oath override such religious leanings?

I didn't see the discussion or the survey. I think it's always useful to see the wording of the actual question. Unfortunately, when a question is so non specific, answers will be very general and cover all possibilities.

I may be way off kilter here, but I would imagine that the circumstance which occurred to those who answered was the example of performing an abortion by someone who was morally opposed to it. That doesn't necessary mean that they personally would refuse.

The Hypocratic Oath hasn't been taken for years! But indeed every doctor, regardless of religious or moral belief, has a duty to treat patients. If a mother's life is in danger then the abortion must be performed.

However, an elective abortion, for whatever reason, is an not an instance of when a patient's life is in danger.

And it may well be, MiceElf, that the other examples were even more theoretical and briefly mentioned, but were picked up in the report as being "newsworthy"

I think this might be the survey referred to in the programme, but I am afraid I did not record it.

http://medblog.medlink-uk.net/laurasmall/2012/04/16/should-medical-students-and-trainee-doctors-be-able-to-opt-out-of-abortion-training/

I've just read the blog and it's very thoughtful and poses some interesting questions.

But the crux of the matter is the proposition should medical professionals be allowed to 'object to precedures' against their regions and moral beliefs.

Now, in the case of abortion, there is disagreement between those who consider it invariably wrong, those who consider that it is morally neutral at all stages of pregnancy and all shades in between.

But let me pose an alternative scenario. When I was working in East Africa FGM was routinely carried out in hospitals by doctors who saw it as part of their cultural heritage.

I know of two doctors from the west, one Scottish and one Belgian who refused to have anything to do with it as they felt it was against their moral principles.

It seems to me that if medics are forced to take part in contentious procedures that opens the door to a great many worrying matters.

I know we are a million miles away from the experimentation in Nazi Germany, but people must be free to follow their conscience.

I signed the 'declaration of geneva' my father took the Hippocratic oath.

Can't do links, but you can google it.
It misses the bits out about molesting female slaves and cutting for the stone that are in the oath

Medi cal students used to have it drummed into them on a daily basis that it was an honour and a privilege to serve the sick. Now people are treated for infertility or have vasectomies reversed. Pregnancy is treated like an illness. No wonder the lines are being blurred.

Why should people not be treated for infertility?

I can see the argument about FGM, but surely that would be covered by the mantra 'Do no harm'. Of course some people would hold that giving an abortion was doing harm, but it is not illegal.
Should we not confine the discussion to the law in the UK?

When I had had my second son the doctor refused me any contraception as he was a Catholic! I was very surprised.

The law changes as a result of changing circumstance and a consensus of opinion. It (mostly) reflects the majority opinion.

But that doesn't make everything that is legal morally right.

Where there are profound differences about what is morally right, it seems to me that that it is the strength of the law, that it will respect the rights of individual conscience.

Thanks for the info MiceElf and Galen - made me whoosh off and learn some more.

To go back to miceelf's post about FGM: this is not a procedure which is done for medical reasons; it is done for religious or "cultural" reasons. Therefore I think no medic should be expected to do it as part of his/her profession.

Abortion is a different case as it can save a woman's life (witness the recent case in Ireland where the woman died; what was reported seemed to be saying that an abortion would have saved the mother's life; as it was, the baby was not going to survive anyway, but aborting it would (might?) have prevented the mother from getting septicaemia from which she also died). If it is a medical procedure to save life, then there should not be an option for medics not to do it for religious reasons.

I don,t think any medic should be able to opt out of caring for someone who has had an abortion, say, or who has attempted to commit suicide. In such a case, they are not being asked to perform anything they object to for religious reasons, but only to care for someone who needs care. That is their job, whatever the cause of the need for medical care.

I agree with you absolutely Bags.

Me too.

I've never come across a doctor or nurse who refused to care for a patient who is post-termination or suicide attempt. Taking part in a procedure is not the same as providing care afterwards.

Miceself's experience of FGM was interesting ........ we all find it abhorrent but if we cared for the patient in the aftermath, doesn't that somehow condone it?

As Greatnan says, we can only address the situation as we find it here in the UK.

No, because the patient didn't choose it. We are not condoning any illness or injury (and FGM is a deliberately imposed injury) by dealing with its consequences.

I googled 'European Court of Human Rights' and found several interesting articles. Here is one:http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/case/scotland-no-right-to-conscientious-objection-for-midwives.html

I feel very strongly that medical professionals should not impose their own religious views on patients. One of my nieces was talked out of an abortion by her Catholic doctor. She was in an abusive relationship (her partner had forced her to have unprotected sex) and she knew she would find it much harder to get away from him if she had a baby. The doctor made her feel guilty and sinful and the power was all on his side.

I am concerned about the logistics, in a time of over-stretched resources, of any nurse or doctor being able to withdraw their labour because of their own religious beliefs. If they find they cannot fulfil all their duties, would it not be better for them to work in a speciality that did not demand that they compromise their principles?