Is it really ok that some GPs can refuse to prescribe the MAP

So if it is nothing to do with religion and the doctors are literally following "do not harm" to the letter, I assume in any case where the mother's life is in danger they immediately deal with the situation and don't pass the woman off to another doctor?

Thing is lougle, there's no legal standard for that referral - ideally the doc would call in their colleague down the corridor with a codeword to get them in ASAP and the entire delay would be under five minutes.
But if the doc instead decides to refer to another GP in writing, it could take weeks, or if their idea of referral is to say "$Practice 20 miles away with no public transport from here to there will do that authorisation", they have covered their backsides with the letter of the law, but failed to provide a satisfactory service. Remember about 15% of English GPs are sole practitioners, probably more in Scotland/Wales, so at a minimum the patient would have to visit a different surgery.

And if as some women have reported, the doc refers to another GP at another practice but oh dear, turns out the 2nd doc also happens to be anti-abortion, what a mistake - there is precious little sanction.

I was pleasantly surprised to be given a leaflet on registering with my current GPs explaining that all the GPs (named) provided contraceptive services (pill, diagprhapgm, emergency hormonal contraception, termination referral) and Drs X and Y could also provide coil and Mirena fittings and contraceptive injections - my previous half-dozen GP surgeries claimed they couldn't provide such info as the doctors weren't obliged to tell the receptionists etc their beliefs!

It's not a sexist issue. It's not the law that a woman can be 'harmed' by having a Doctor refuse to authorise an abortion/give the MAP. The law is that the Doctor can refuse to do so themselves, but must refer to another who will.

I work in the health care profession

i have a moral aversion to treating people whose personal hygiene does not come up to my own standards.

That's about a quarter of my work I don't have to do then ! Goodo.

It does discriminate against women tho!

A very simple way if avoiding the situation if a dr refusing map/abortion referral us for them to make it clear at the surgery (sign etc) or when you sign up, that certain drs do not provide this service then a woman can choose not to see them, simple.

Agree with SGB about GPs making their position clear in advance.

I also feel that they should not be obliged to go against their conscience, whether their objections be religious, humanist, moral, whatever.

"It does seem that this is legal discrimination towards women."

It is not discrimination. It is the legal refusal to be responsible for a life ending at their hands.

Do they all refuse on religious grounds or is it moral/ethical reasons? I do agree its wrong that they are allowed to refuse to give map/abortion which are legal.

A dr couldnt refuse to treat someone who is gay for example. It does seem that this is legal discrimination towards women.

There is no treatment a gp can legally refuse to give to a male patient?

Bit of a tangent, but we can and do force people to do things against their faith. Suppose it was my faith that I had to sacrifice my firstborn to the great Juju under the sea - well, the law and the opprobium of my neighbours would wish to prevent me from doing so.

Suppose it was my faith to punch people called Margaret in the face every Tuesday. Well, I'd still be charged with assault, even if it was my faith that made me do it.

Suppose it was my faith to never swerve my car to avoid jaywalkers if they were Chinese ... well, I'd still be wrong to intentionally knock them down.

It used to be that Christian teachings about the 'Children of Ham' were used to justify the slave trade, and good Christians were told to support slavery, because it was 'their faith.'

We force people to do things 'against their faith' all the time, people make compromises in order to live in our society, and it's rarely faith-based changes that improve the way of the world. It's usually progressive people agitating for social change.

I'm not name-calling, but the defence of 'it's my faith!' is insipid, at best. Do all these people tithe, and refrain from all work all sabbath long? Do they honour their parents, and never ever take the Lord's name in vain? Nahh, I doubt it. BUt their faith comes into play when it comes to refraining from helping vulnerable women in trouble, doesn't it?

^"You can't force someone to do something against there [sic] faith"
Well. The B&B owners were fined for discriminating against Gay people due to their religion. The consensus on the other thread seems to be - if you're not prepared to cater for the public then you're in the wrong job.^

Exactly, why is it ok to discriminate against gender/sexuality but the religious get a free pass

I don't personally think they should be allowed to work with women f they have those views..

I agree with Solid and Blackcurrants, more effort needs to be made to ensure women seeking MAP and or TOP receive the same standard of care, including avoiding unnecessary delay as any other patient.

On the blog and now really have to run off and make zombie plan fridge magnets.

Happy aww, I've been away doing bedtime, but what a nice thing to say :) I'm just a lucky, lucky woman who's aware that things like this, which would be an inconvenience and an annoyance to me, could seriously destroy someone of fragile confidence or shattered self-esteem or difficult financial circumstances, specially since that woman is already in a horrible, horrible situation.

I think you should know what you're signing up for, when you sign up to see a Doctor. It saves the Doctor's time, it saves your time, and no one needs to hear (or give!) a lecture. The Doctor's conscience/morals are never so much as ruffled, and the women get the care they need from someone willing to actually provide it.

I've no idea why it's not already law. Or, rather, all the ideas I have are rather dark thoughts about people actively wanting to shame and upset vulnerable women. If you don't want to do that, surely you make it clear and obvious what aspects of female healthcare you will and won't provide to all potential patients.

Ok, so what is wrong with the idea of making it compulsory for GPs to be obliged to make it very, very clear that they are opposed to abortion and the MAP? How could it be 'discriminating' against them? If they hold such fuckwitted beliefs, they should be proud to stand up for them. All it would mean is that patients who need to access these specific services don't have their time wasted. It wouldn't cost anything.

WHY IS IT NOT ALREADY LAW?

At the GP surgery I used to work at there was a female dr who would not refer patients for abortion due to her catholic faith. She did, however, refer the patients straight to a colleague (whilst they were still in the surgery) for further consultation. She did provide patients with contraception advice though, even though that also goes against her faith, because (in her own words) "prevention is better than the cure".

We didn't have a sign up saying not to see her if you wanted an abortion though!

you would hope that is the case clemette