Doctors/pharmacists/dentists who refuse to treat

I agree. But what actually infuriates me more are the doctors who refuse to treat smokers for smoking-related diseases or fat people for obesity problems because their illnesses are "self-inflicted". This is ridiculous and can be applied to almost any situation. I hope that when they see a doctor after a car-crash the doctor refuses to treat them because their injuries are self-inflicted because they were driving somewhere. These people are just bullies picking on easy targets. And have they forgotten who pays their wages?

Are some things really non-negotiable? I fail to see how liberty can be extended by the restriction of liberty. If medics want to treat only certain people then what we really need is enough open-minded, tolerant and caring medics to look after those of us who don't meet the approval of the narrow-minded ones. The best way to make this kind of medieval intolerance no more than a memory is to build a free society not to bring the weight of the law to bear.

"On the one hand lots of women for many reasons ask to see female docs fair enough BUT the Doc must be a doc first rather than choose to exercise their individual conscience." There are plenty of existing accepted reasons why doctors may choose not to treat people. All doctors are currently to allowed to refuse to carry out abortions on the basis of conscience, for example. And, of course, doctors in private practice choose whether or not to treat people on the basis of whether or not they can afford to pay. Why is not treating a woman morally worse than not treating a poor person?

You're absolutely right camilla. There are simply some circumstances where insignificant twaddle just doesn't apply. :-0 When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Speaking personally I'd rather have a doctor who is happy to treat me than one who does so grudgingly. This is definitely not insignificant twaddle, it's really about whether problems are best solved by the application of draconian laws or by social/cultural change. Now you can be in favour of a law that means an anti-semitic doctor must treat a Jewish patient if you like, but maybe you're not the Jewish patient that has to put up with the anti-semitic medic. Let's say you achieve a highly regulated regime that insists that all doctors must treat all patients equally, regardless of their own attitudes: now you've got uncomfortable patients with resentful doctors. I don't think that's the path to good health.

If doctors are going to have problems with their patient's religious beliefs, etc, then they should not be doctors because it will have a potentially bad effect on their work, including their patients who are undoubtedly already ill enough to begin with.

I agree that problems are best solved by social/cultural change, but while we're waiting for it, I'll settle for a few 'draconian' laws. Sometimes the law has to lead, and help bring about the social and cultural change, as in anti-racist and equal pay legislation, or the legalisation of male homosexuality. I agree with Jacobea in that someone who does not believe in treating everybody equally should not become a doctor. Unfortunately you can't stop them from doing so - however I don't think the requirements of the profession should be changed or limited to suit them.

Okay Margharita, I take your point, it is just that I do not believe that the law is very good at leading. In fact I would argue that often laws framed with the best of intentions cause very negative social reactions.

jacobea said: "If doctors are going to have problems with their patient's religious beliefs, etc, then they should not be doctors because it will have a potentially bad effect on their work, including their patients who are undoubtedly already ill enough to begin with." BRAVO!! :~) When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Well, now you want doctors who are saints, or you want all medics to be certified as liberal before they become qualified, or you want doctors to be regularly tested throughout their careers in case they have developed intolerance as they have aged. I don't want my post delivered by a racist; I think it would have a detrimental effect on the job; the question is whether an attempt to purge the postal service of racists is the best way to achieve the desired end.

"..or you want all medics to be certified as liberal before they become qualified.." No, just human beans with a little compassion...blahdeeblah When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

I don't think people's opinions are the issue. It's their actions. My attempts to be provocative aside, I don't think there's a serious argument that doctors whose training and wages are provided by the British taxpayer should be able to refuse to treat women or to order them to put on a headscarf before treatment. The people in question are not necessary evil or obnoxious. They may have well-intentioned, sincerely held beliefs but those beliefs are incompatible with doing the job in the UK. The morning after pill question is different and I think it is equivalent to the doctors choice to carry out abortions (or not).

'First do no harm.... No deadly drug.....' I am sure later in the Hippocratic Oath there is something which applies here. Or maybe some doctors have taken the 'Hypocritic(al) Oath?' Of course there is no such thing now, but there is the 'Declaration of Geneva' 'I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;' QED, I think

GPs aren't quite employed by the state, they're professionals who offer their services to the NHS; same with dentists. Both professions had very strong and influential professional associations representing their interests when the NHS was being created, hence their long-standing cushy position and high level of financial recompense. You'd think that discrimination would be against legislation, but I imagine it's spun as providing certain specialist services to particular groups, rather than denying services to other groups. I think that conscience shouldn't come into the decision relating to professionals and abortions, but I would say that, being for abortion and right to choose it. Cheers, Mark

I'm a bit fency on this one... as is my wont! Freedom (to choose who to treat, who to be treated by, etc, etc, etc) Vs State-imposed morality (how appropriate is it to put our moral welfare in the hands of the few who hold the reigns of power? (i.e. the lawmakers)) ...? Tricky one... :/ pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

Maybe they should display placards in their windows exclaiming which colour, creed, illness and/or religion they won't treat. AGH!! :( When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Ooh... :/ pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

"State-imposed morality (how appropriate is it to put our moral welfare in the hands of the few who hold the reigns of power? (i.e. the lawmakers))" It's certainly appropriate to operate according to the state's laws if you take the state's money (taxpayers' money) in exchange for providing a service. It's difficult to argue that women should pay taxes to fund the wages of someone who refuses to provide them with a service or - as in the case of the dentist and the veil - tries to use his position of power to impose his religious beliefs on them. I think refusing to treat someone on the grounds of gender is also illegal in private practice but it would be more difficult to stop.

how appropriate is it to put our moral welfare in the hands of the few who hold the reigns of power? (i.e. the lawmakers) Isn't that part of what we pay them for. I'm not sure who else I'd prefer to put my moral welfare in the hands of, at least 'the lawmakers' have some electoral accountability and democratic mandate.

Mark said: "GPs aren't quite employed by the state, they're professionals who offer their services to the NHS; same with dentists." This is a fairly academic point, as they are still accepting payment for a service they are (or are not) providing. In my book, if they accept the payment they commit to doing the job.

Welcome to the wonderful world of black & white... It's very dull in here!

But... Do we have any real choice (dubious "democratic mandate" & "electoral accountability" aside) in who we pay to make/enforce our laws for us? pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

Well, we have more choice than some people do. It's easy to dismiss democratic mandates and electoral accountability when you live in a country does have them.

gggareth, my point is that the terms as negotiated for GPs and dentists are set up for such individual discretion as we're discussing. I agree that if you take the cash, you should do the job, but the present system gives a choice of which jobs you take, and therefore which you take cash for. They are private professionals, due to the historical factors I noted above. Private professionals, unless forced to, will do what they like. Cheers, Mark

Bukh: "Well, we have more choice than some people do. It's easy to dismiss democratic mandates and electoral accountability when you live in a country does have them." Indeed so, Bukh - I don't deny it. But just because we have it better than others, doesn't mean we shouldn't question what we have. pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?