Susan Estrich asks "Does a doctor have a right to deny treatment to a patient because of her own religious views? Or does a patient have a right to be free from what she sees as wrongful discrimination that consists of denying to her medical treatment that is provided to others?"

Estrich then offers an answer to her questions:

Seems to me that Estrich wants to reserve the right for people to decide what sexual relationships and sexual practices they want to engage in and are ethical, but doctors can't decide what treatments are ethical. Does she have a point or not? Should private physicians have the right to decide who they'll treat or what treatments they'll provide? Should a physician be required to provide abortions, or say, assisted suicide?

My own insignificant opinion is that no one should be forced to provide services that would violate his/her conscience. Let the seeker find someone who will provide the service willingly. I know that as a minister of the Gospel, I would absolutely refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex.

Hello minister. There is no such thing as marriage between people of the same sex. There is what is called a "same sex union." In many cases though companies are providing insurance to same sex couples even without a recognized ceremony of sorts. For my two cents worth, I think every American needs insurance, regardless.

I don't think your opinion is insignificant. This is one of those things that drives me nuts about the left. Seems they want the right to exercise their conscience and the right to force me to violate mine.

Wow, we find an area of agreement again finally. But what about the questions?

Steve, I often don't find truth in the far left or extreme right. I'm OK with any doctor, based on principles, to make a decision not to perform service based on his or her religion. The ramifications though, if it's not a private clinic, is that they will be answering to their employer. Which in many cases will result in verbal discipline, physical suspensions, and eventually being let go. That's the nice way of saying you're fired. Then the doctor can apply for Workman's Compensation if it's not proven to be for insubordination. Nevada, is a right to work state. I could tell my employer that I'm taking off every shabbos and in return they can tell me to hit the door and not look back. Back in the day when I wore a beard, yarmulke, and was far more observant to my Faiths traditions, I did bust heads with many employer. Nobody should forfeit standing ground for their valued principles... just be willing to pay the price.

Is the doctor in private practice or employed in a clinic . If the doctor is in a private practice the doctor should have the ability to decide which services the doctor will perform. If not ,and the doctor works under the policy of the place of employment then the choice id to follow the policy or resign.

Exactly. I don't believe Estrich designated whether or the doctors were in a private practice or not - just that they were Christians.

Seems simple enough to me.

Do doctors have the same first Amendment right to freely express their religion?

Did the lesbian not know that they could always get a second opinion?

Required? Abortion and suicide "deliberately harm" life and are not exactly part of the hippocratic oath.

Do doctors tell lawyers how to practice law?

Actually no, doctors do not have this right, drug stores have already been sued over this issue, ( morning after abortion pills) and they lost and have to provide it, even though the store or druggests personal views are against it.

Citizens in America have a lot less "rights" because of the desires of special interest groups.

You are correct Fr. Chuck... my position that I stated was the way I thought it should be.

Hello:

I thought the druggists won...

If the state gives you a license, then the state can dictate what services you WILL do and what you will NOT do. I think it's fine for a druggist to abstain from immoral behavior if he so chooses in his OWN life. I do NOT think it's fine for him to impose his views upon his customers.

As a matter of fact, I'll bet the state issues licenses based upon how many drug stores are in a certain area. That could result in only ONE drug store in a little teeny town - and no other town for miles and miles...

Are you going to tell me, that this druggist has the right to make his customers go without a legal and prescribed drug?? I understand that YOU might think the druggist has that right, and he really does. But, the state has the right to take his license away for doing it, and giving it to someone who will serve the needs of his community instead of himself.

IF a business WASN'T required to be licensed, then of course, the business could sell anything they want to whomever they want.

IF these Christian doctors are licensed by the state, the state can require them to perform certain functions. And, it SHOULD.

Do any of you have licenses?? Can you violate the terms of YOUR license because you object to some of them?? I don't think you can. Can a bus driver refuse to ride with a black person because he's offended by them??

excon

I am not aware of a requirement for a license to operate a drug store. A pharmacist needs a professional license to dispense drugs . I have no doubt there is quid pro quo like having a pharmacy degree.
Here are NY State's requirements :
To be licensed as a pharmacist in New York State you must:

• be of good moral character;
• be at least 21 years of age;
• meet education, examination, and experience requirements; and
• be a United States citizen or alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (Alien Registration Card /USCIS I-551 Status - "Green Card").
  NYS Pharmacy - License Requirements

beyond that they don't tell the pharmacist what he can sell or dispense.

Hello again, tom:

I suggest that a druggist is regulated a little more than that. For example, a druggist is required to be licensed by the DEA. They have a few requirements. Actually, they have a HUGE manual:

Pharmacist's Manual - Table of Contents

He's regulated by other agencies, too.

excon

Yup a huge manual all right . If you don't mind ,I won't go sifting through it now to try and find the section that compels the pharmacist to dispense medications he is morally opposed to .

Actually this was about doctors, not pharmacists. Still, I beg to differ, ex but I'm sure that doesn't surprise you. Bars are licensed by the state, restaurants are generally licensed by the local health department, attorneys are licensed by the state, heck, we're licensed by the state to service fire equipment. Are all of us required to offer service to everyone, or forced into practices that are against our conscience? No, absolutely not.

Bars choose to serve or not serve, restaurants choose the right to refuse service to anyone, attorneys decline to take cases and if we don't want to inspect someone's extinguishers or fire alarm we don't. Doctors and clinics can and do "fire" patients all the time. In fact, Texas law allows for an employee of a hospital or clinic - not just a private practice - to refuse to participate in abortions, but apparently not in dispensing EC.

At least 4 states have adopted "conscience clauses" for pharmacists and many more have proposed legislation. The usual caveat is that they are required to refer the patient elsewhere or have another pharmacist fill the prescription. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with forcing a pharmacist or physician to dispense drugs or provide treatments that violate their conscience - especially when it comes to those the objector believes will cause harm to another person.

Should a pharmacist should be required to dispense drugs for assisted suicide, capital punishment or Viagra for convicted sex offenders? Should a doctor should be forced to administer the lethal cocktail to a condemned prisoner?

Hello Steve:

a) If assisted suicide is legal, yes. In Oregon?? Absolutely!
b) Where do you think they get the drugs to kill the condemned? I think they buy 'em at a drug store.
c) Yes, his customers criminal history aren't his business.
d) If he's working for the prison, yes.

Should McDonald's be able to refuse to serve you fat? Should your children's lunch be gone through because eating bad foods might be against the teachers conscience? Why isn't a teachers conscience important when you want her to teach ID, even if she objects on moral grounds? Should cigarettes be made illegal?

excon

So you do offer an exception?

This is not so much an issue of morality as it is of equality. I find it so strange that people fail to see that. At a point in time, a business could refuse to provide service to someone because they were black. Not anymore. That would seem obsurd to most, correct? But we can discriminate against other people who are 'different' from the majority... namely, in this case, homosexuals. By making discrimination a 'moral' issue, and claiming that NOT discriminating would be against someone's 'religious beliefs', it's condoned. And saying that someone who is in the profession of providing a service has the RIGHT to refuse that service to someone because of their own unfounded biased beliefs about whether they can or cannot parent children (when all studies to date have shown no significant difference between gay parents and straight parents), that is blatant discrimination. No matter how you try to dress it up, that's what it is.