Sorry, but wrong conscience doctor

Sorry Dr. Stevens, but you and your group are considering the wrong consicence. Obama was right to reverse the "conscience rule." Dr. Stevens and friends would like to permit doctors to withhould counseling to patients about the following procedures if the procedure is against their beliefs: abortion, blood transfusions, contraception, family planning and vaccine counseling. The doctor may not like or believe in all of these procedures, but HIS beliefs don't matter. Its the PATIENT who has to decide what to do and the patient's body we are talking about.

Doctors practice under informed consent. This means that a doctor is required to inform a patient of all practical courses of treatment and the relative risks associated with them so the patient can decide what to do. Given that patients do not know all of the possible courses of treatment, hence in large part the need for a doctor, this makes perfect sense. This is especially true since the state licenses doctors to practice. The doctor is not, and should not, be permitted to omit actions that might be in the patient's best interest because they don't like them. If the doctor wants to ban a certain practice, or convince people not to utilize them, then they ought to run for office, petition their lawmakers, run advertisements or become a member of the clergy. They should not abuse their position of superior knowledge and standing in regards to medicine to swindle their patients into following the doctor's moral code. A patient should be able to trust their doctor and not have to get a second opinion about everything for fear the doctor's moral code is blocking information (which is especially true if time is an issue and no second opinion can be obtained). Patient's shouldn't be required to interview a doctor prior to visiting him to determine if his religious beliefs will be substituted for the patient's without the patient even knowing it was happening.

Its even worse in the case of someone taken to a hospital in an ambulance. People who are taken away in an ambulance are often given no choice as to where they are taken, especially if unconsious. Should a patient be forced to bleed out because the doctor won't advise them of, or perform, a blood transfusion when the ambulance arrives? What about rape victims, should they not be informed of the morning after pill or denied it (turns out this is sort of a time sensitive thing, hence the whole "morning after"...so running out to the drug store later that evening or week doesn't really cut it)? Should anyone be denied information regarding an effective vaccine because the doctor doesn't like it?

If a doctor wants to influence people's moral choices they chose the wrong profession. People go to doctors for medical advice, not moral advice. I don't really care, although I think it would be highly unprofessional and inappropriate, if the doctor wants to provide moral commentary so long as they give the complete, accurate and understandable medical facts too. A doctor is a medical expert. When an expert is consulted they are supposed to provide objective analysis and advice so that an informed decision can be made. They are not supposed to omit information allowing them to play God by substituting their own moral code for that of the person who consulted them. A doctor cannot be permitted to withold information to pertinent treatment anymore than they should be allowed to refuse to save a person who they belief should be permitted to die when the ambulance shows up at their hospital. Doctors voluntarily chose to step into a position of state certified and subsidized power and influence (who do they think pays for 911? Phone calls, emergency operators and their computers aren't provided free of charge you know). They cannot cry foul when they are then required to exercise that power and influence in an objective and neutral way.

Madison