Quote:
Originally Posted by
Enoch the Red
I didn't realize it was directed at me. I'm still waiting to hear how it violates the Hippocratic Oath, either the original or modern interpretations.
The Hippocratic Oath is irrelevant. Being a doctor isn't an anachronistic hobby or a religion. It is, in most western countries, a strictly regulated profession, whose licensed and practicing members are required to adhere to current laws and current ethical standards. The Hippocratic Oath has no legal status, and its ethical status has been superseded by more recent declarations. Consequently, in the majority of American med-schools, you're likely to see a variation of the Declaration of Geneva used, of which this sort of discrimination is likely to violate several statements:
Quote:
AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:
I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;
Except LGBTQ people?
Quote:
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
Except when my hang-ups about their sexual orientation is my first consideration.
Quote:
I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;
Except when I see fit to subject them to the indignity of being denied care due to my hang-ups.
Quote:
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;
But I will.
Quote:
I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;
But not for teh gays.
Quote:
I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;
But not the ones listed above.
American doctors are required to adhere to the AMA principles of medical ethics, of which this sort of discrimination violates a few:
Quote:
I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.
But not for LGBTQ people.
Quote:
V. A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.
Unless it offends their religious sensibilities or idiosyncratic hang-ups.
Quote:
VI. A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.
This has never been understood to permit illegal or invidious discrimination, but now we have the all-clear.
Quote:
VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.
But not for everyone, esp. not those engaging in "sick" behavior.
Quote:
VIII. A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.
Nope, responsibility to the Bible is no. 1 priority.
Quote:
IX. A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.
"But not here."
I can understand that from some naïve libertarian perspective there's nothing wrong--and perhaps a lot of good--with denying a patient care. Certainly, if a doctor regards himself as being incompetent or severely compromised, it's a good thing to not subject a patient to the risk of his deficient care. But even in such situations you have to provide adequate care by doing what you can, until someone can relieve you and provide better care. You can do this eg. by giving the patient a referral to another doctor who can better help the patient. But, in reality, denying a patient care in this fashion comes with a risk of doing harm, violating perhaps the most universally recognized principle in medical ethics.
When someone comes to you seeking help, and you deny them that help because you can't bring yourself to treat eg. a lesbian woman, that can do a great deal of harm. It may delay care, which can be harmful even outside of life-or-death emergencies--it takes mental, emotional, physical and financial resources to seek medical help, and if you lose someone who's expended much of their resources in order to finally seek your help, they may be lost for months, or years, if not forever. If that person understands, belatedly, that they've been denied care due to eg. their sexual orientation or something similar, it may not only hurt them emotionally, but also sabotage all their future relationships with healthcare professionals, making them reluctant to seek help in time. If you're the only doctor in town, even if you can refer them to another doctor in another town, the patient has to overcome another unnecessary obstacle, which may be beyond their means. In reality, if one doctor refuses to treat a patient on the grounds of eg. sexual orientation, there's probably a high likelihood of other doctors in the same region having similar views who'll exercise the same "right" to deny care, putting patients in an impossible or extremely difficult situation.
The specific examples brought up in this discussion don't help your position, nor are they particularly relevant. FGM-like procedures of all varieties are currently illegal in most western states afaik, certainly for children (and, in the US, even for adults in 26 states). In addition, these procedures are at best not medically justified, at worst extremely harmful, both at the individual level as well as at a societal level. Doctors are unlikely to treat family members eg. by operating on them or treating them in some other way, but every single doctor on earth gives medical advice to--and provides quick assessments of--close family members when needed, before seeking out colleagues who can take over the responsibility. A more relevant example is that of doctors who, in the 80s, refused to treat patients with HIV. In practice, for a very long time, the AMA made exceptions for this.