TRUMP 2016

[Enoch the Red]

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 The Hippocratic Oath has no legal status, and its ethical status has been superseded by more recent declarations.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:

I will defer as to the professional relevance of the Hippocratic Oath to the person currently serving as a doctor. It is, however, entirely relevant to Ominous' claim, something that I still haven't seen a persuasive argument for.

Except LGBTQ people?

Except when my hang-ups about their sexual orientation is my first consideration.

Except when I see fit to subject them to the indignity of being denied care due to my hang-ups.

But I will.

But not for teh gays.

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:

But not for LGBTQ people.

Unless it offends their religious sensibilities or idiosyncratic hang-ups.

This has never been understood to permit illegal or invidious discrimination, but now we have the all-clear.

But not for everyone, esp. not those engaging in "sick" behavior.

Nope, responsibility to the Bible is no. 1 priority.

"But not here."

I am not looking to defend or excuse that kind of behavior. I find it personally unjustifiable and likely harmful for everyone involved.

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.

I imagine there is a potential for any number of known and unknown risks, in addition to second and third order effects with any course of action a doctor takes. Treatment is inherently risky. Not treating is also risky. Ultimately I imagine it is up to the provider to perform that calculus, make that decision, and live with the consequences.

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.

Which is why the example I provided was for a willing woman in the United States, where it would be legal. Should a nurse or doctor be forced to assist in an FGM procedure in those instances, even if it violates their moral or religious beliefs?