1311
submitted 10 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/news@lemmy.world

Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 400 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If doctors (or pharmacists) want the choice to impose their own religion on their patients, then at minimum need need to disclose that before ever meeting a patient. Additionally it would disqualify them from accepting any patients that are subsidized with taxpayer money.

This could act like the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of cigarettes:

WARNING: this physician acts with their own religion in mind before your well being. This could be a danger to your health.

[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 96 points 10 months ago

No, they should have their medical license revoked. Doctors have to swear an oath to not intentionally or knowingly harm a patient for a reason, because their well being is their top priority. If they can't adhere to that oath because of arbitrary religious/philosophical/political/whatever beliefs, then they have no business being a medical professional.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago

Pharmacists are also licensed professionals. If ANY healthcare worker cannot carry out the core duties of their profession, for whatever reason, in an equal manner regardless of personal belief and/or the identity of the patient, their license should be revoked.

Why do we maintain the licenses of individuals who cannot or will not complete the duties of the job for which they are licensed? To me, that defeats the whole purpose of a licensing system for healthcare workers. It's not a license to dispense only to people with whom you agree and when you want to do so; it is an assurance on behalf of the community that you will carry out your duties professionally and ethically toward all, without exception.

[-] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I agree. A doctor putting their own religious beliefs over established medical science and the well being of their patient is completely against the Hippocratic Oath.

[-] medgremlin 8 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately, the original Hippocratic oath that many doctors swear to includes a line about not performing abortions or prescribing abortifacients.

It is my understanding that, at the time that version of the oath was written, that was less a prohibition of abortion and more a matter of pregnancy and abortion being under the purview of midwives, not physicians.

To that point, I wrote my own medical oath that I will hold to because I think that things like autonomy, free choice, and dignity in death are actually important.

[-] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

Thank you for clarifying, I did not know that about the Hippocratic Oath. I think it's really cool that you wrote your own Oath. Thank you for your empathy and service to humankind.

[-] medgremlin 3 points 10 months ago

The medical school I'm currently in is an Osteopathic school that leans pretty hard into the Christian traditions/origins of osteopathy, so it's not terribly uncommon for me to get into philosophical and ethical arguments with my classmates and professors. There are a bunch of them that I know that I'll never change their minds about most things, but the others who listen in to those arguments might be swayed or at least given a seed of doubt to explore further.

load more comments (49 replies)
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
1311 points (98.0% liked)

News

22470 readers
4693 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS