About this GP

[slightlyconfused85]

Now before I start I generally think Gps are amazing people, I'm not dissing the profession. Today, however, I booked an appointment to get the contraceptive pill after the birth of my 2nd child. I was given an appointment with a locum who explained my options to me, then said he didn't prescribe contraception for ethical reasons. I then had to wait 45 minutes for another gp to be able to fit me in to prescribe this for me. Aibu to think that if the gp surgery is going to have locums that won't do this then they could have let me know on the phone when I booked? I know the receptionist didn't know what I wanted but they could say if it's an appointment to discuss contraception then say and we will find a different GP. Had loads of time wasted today and feeling (probably irrationally) irritable about it!

[Lurkedforever1]

My friend got one too betty, although not waiting as long as you as it was just a mad locum.
I think if they hold views that stop them following the patients legal right to treatment, if they won't do the decent thing and leave the profession, they should have their name and views on the website and a big poster in the surgery so people can avoid them.
I'm not buying into changes since they started out as an excuse for most standard reproductive procedures. Contraception, abortion etc were around before many gps today even trained. And advances in science don't explain it either. If anything abortion guidelines have tightened up now we know more, so a gp that signed up to those old rules has no logical argument to object to today's more stringent ones.

[CatWithKittens]

ElkeDagMeisije wrote in direct response to my earlier post:
...harping on about the second world war as if no lessons have been implemented from it. Its a kind of wilful and deliberate ignorance which I don't find very truthful. ie I find it immoral in itself ...
I leave any fair and objective readers to judge whether or not that amounts to an accusation of wilful ignorance, dishonesty (by untruthfulness) and immorality, and if so, whether it was abusive.
Later she lectures me on fundamental human rights. Having been awarded a First in Jurisprudence from one of the older Universities, I can assure her that I am well aware both of the existence of law designed to protect rights and of some of its fundamental flaws. I hope that answers her next descent to abuse:
As an aside, can anyone tell me if Cat's style of argument is something that is taught in maybe the lower level universities in the UK?
I shall resist the temptation to respond in kind.
I suspect the difficulty for many people on this thread is that they cannot answer the real question which needs to be answered, namely: why should we not protect rights of individual conscience, especially in matters of life and death? I note nobody has answered my earlier question as to whether those in favour of overriding individual consciences in the interest of others would require a conscientious objector to fight and kill because other people have a right to be defended? All I am saying is that it is entirely proper that A should be able to say that he or she will not help B to avail herself of a law which permits, but does not require, B to take a course of action which A finds conscientiously repugnant. Nobody has answered the point, which does not actually arise in this case that requiring doctors to place obedience to the law above their principles has led in the past to behaviour which nobody could support. In this instance, of course, both doctors and patients have been given rights by law - the patient to contraception and the doctor to follow his or her conscience. That is another reason, in this instance, why criticism of the doctor is unfounded on the basis that the patient's legal rights are being trampled on
And, yes, I do say, unreservedly and without repentance, that the real issue goes beyond the particular in this case and that it is societies which reject the right of individual conscience which are more likely to forget other rights by an almost imperceptible slide with each slithery step down well argued, in an apparently good cause, in society's interest and so it goes on.

It has happened too often, in far too many places for me, to say too easily that I wish another's conscience to be overborne because it may cause a little delay in obtaining something which the law allows me. I am with Pastor Niemoller:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

[CatWithKittens]

Stray comma crept in; last sentence should read: It has happened too often, in far too many places for me to say too easily that I wish another's conscience to be overborne because it may cause a little delay in obtaining something which the law allows me. I'd hate my primary school to be labelled lower level too.

[TenForward82]

cat, if you find THAT abusive, then I'd wager you're too sensitive for MN. I've been directly insulted (called an asshole, a dick, and a twat) for sharing my opinions on here.

As for why we should not protect individual conscious or whatever, assuming you're referring to the doctor's individual twattery, we've answered that question repeatedly. RTFT.

Sorry, is it obvious I'm running out of patience here?

[Lurkedforever1]

Doctors do have an option cat, UK gps aren't conscripted against their will. They aren't forced to work in an area where duty and personal beliefs clash. It's not allowed in low paid jobs so why in the nhs?
Would you be fine if your kids came home from school and said they hadn't had lunch cos the new Cook had ethical beliefs on animal products?
Or the teacher had ethical beliefs on imported sweatshop clothes and had banned all but homespun?
Or the cashier in the shop refused to sell you cheap milk due to ethics?
Or if someone has ethics we all agree are disgusting like race/ gender/ disability discrimination and refused to teach/ serve / treat them do they deserve their ethics to be respected?
Or do you think any hcp taking an active part in a patients request for euthanasia would be excused because it was done on the basis of personal ethics?
Why do doctors deserve special treatment when it comes to female reproduction?

[didyouwritethe]

My concern remains for very young women who don't know that GPs may act on their own prejudices. I was certainly a massive victim of that when I was a teenager, too naive to realise the GP was an arsehole who was abusing his position of power over women.

[bumbleymummy]

It's not just female reproduction where a doctor may exercise conscientious objection.

From the BMA

"Some commentators have argued that doctors should have no rights to conscientious objection, that "to be a doctor is to be willing and able to offer appropriate medical interventions that are legal, beneficial, desired by the patient, and a part of a just healthcare system", and that such an obligation should be enforced.

We do not support such a restricted position. Partly for the reason that the right to exercise a conscientious objection to participating in abortion and fertility treatment is already provided for in statute. In addition, the BMA would support a request by a doctor seeking to exercise a conscientious objection to withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from a patient lacking capacity - ie the patient cannot make a choice herself - where another doctor is available and willing to take over care.

The BMA distinguishes these procedures for a number of reasons. The first is their moral seriousness. Sincerely held views about when morally valuable human life begins differ in our society. Some for example believe that full moral value begins at conception. For those who hold this view, abortion is a very grave intervention. Likewise, in certain clearly defined circumstances, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act permits the use of human embryos for treatment and research.

Another reason we distinguish these interventions is because they relate to specific acts, not to specific individuals or groups of individuals. It is to the act of terminating a pregnancy, or, in relation to withdrawing treatment, the 'letting die' that the doctor objects to. In our view this is very different to a doctor refusing to treat certain types or classes of patient. The objection may also arise on the basis of genuine moral disagreement as to whether the intervention provides an overall benefit."

[Lurkedforever1]

No, but at gp level it's the main area personal belief impacts a large % of the population.

[ElkeDagMeisje]

CatWithKittens I leave any fair and objective readers to judge whether or not that amounts to an accusation of wilful ignorance, dishonesty (by untruthfulness) and immorality, and if so, whether it was abusive.
Later she lectures me on fundamental human rights. Having been awarded a First in Jurisprudence from one of the older Universities, I can assure her that I am well aware both of the existence of law designed to protect rights and of some of its fundamental flaws. I hope that answers her next descent to abuse

Err, I haven't been in the slightest bit abusive. I simply pointed out that discriminating against women, since it is a fundamental right under the European Charter (not ECHR) and protected by Art. 18 TFEU in a very special way by the relevant institutions, is unethical.

I suspect the difficulty for many people on this thread is that they cannot answer the real question which needs to be answered, namely: why should we not protect rights of individual conscience, especially in matters of life and death? I note nobody has answered my earlier question as to whether those in favour of overriding individual consciences in the interest of others would require a conscientious objector to fight and kill because other people have a right to be defended?

As I said earlier, because of the principles of supremacy, proportionality and the rule of law. Article 49 TEU reminds us of the requirement of States to respect the values in Article 2 TEU, which include the rule of law, and Article 7 TEU, although it has never been used, creates a remedy for breach of those Article 2 values by a Member State. See also Raz, Hayek, Dworkin, Dicey, Rawls, and Solange I and II, for starters...

All I am saying is that it is entirely proper that A should be able to say that he or she will not help B to avail herself of a law which permits, but does not require, B to take a course of action which A finds conscientiously repugnant. Nobody has answered the point, which does not actually arise in this case that requiring doctors to place obedience to the law above their principles has led in the past to behaviour which nobody could support. In this instance, of course, both doctors and patients have been given rights by law - the patient to contraception and the doctor to follow his or her conscience. That is another reason, in this instance, why criticism of the doctor is unfounded on the basis that the patient's legal ights are being trampled on. And, yes, I do say, unreservedly and without repentance, that the real issue goes beyond the particular in this case and that it is societies which reject the right of individual conscience which are more likely to forget other rights by an almost imperceptible slide with each slithery step down well argued, in an apparently good cause, in society's interest and so it goes on.

Sorry, but that is drivel. Its clearly "written" (and I use that word lightly - get rid of the fake pseudo attempts at sounding academic) by someone who had perhaps, at most, read some introductory seminar introductions to a course of study they would have liked to embark upon. There is no way that anyone who doesn't understand the principle of the rule of law has even completed first year jurisprudence at the two UK universities which offer that very specific (and rather useless) undergraduate course as a subject on its own.

I absolutely cannot abide frauds on the internet. I find it absolutely immoral to be so obsessed about a topic to the point that you want to control others and inflict your viewpoint upon them, by saying or doing whatever untruth is necessary to do so.

each slithery step down well argued, in an apparently good cause

Do I have your permission to use that an example of how not to write well?

[ElkeDagMeisje]

bumbleymummy Another reason we distinguish these interventions is because they relate to specific acts, not to specific individuals or groups of individuals. It is to the act of terminating a pregnancy, or, in relation to withdrawing treatment, the 'letting die' that the doctor objects to. In our view this is very different to a doctor refusing to treat certain types or classes of patient. The objection may also arise on the basis of genuine moral disagreement as to whether the intervention provides an overall benefit."

From your link to the BMA's comments. They make the distinction on the ground that it relates not to acts but to individuals, in a specific sense. However, the whole definition of indirect discrimination is usually statistical, in that you simply count the number of those adversely affected by a policy or decision, and compare them against the non-affected group and then adjudge whether the first group is defined by characteristics protected by legislation from discrimination.

It is clear that women are indirectly discriminated against here.

I am beginning to wonder if this is actionable at law, particularly if an individual patient suffered loss or personal injury as a result of the refusal of legally permissible and perfectly standard and reasonable treatment.

I think it must be. Health Boards really need to act so as to avoid legal claims here. The BMA are very unwise to put that sort of statement up on their website. Morals do not generally trouble the law when held personally, but when they are inflicted on other persons who do not share them, it is a different matter.

I'd quite like to encounter one of these doctors conscientiously objecting against contraception actually...

[CatWithKittens]

And now in the same breath as denying being abusive she accuses me, without any foundation whatsoever, of lying about my academic credentials which I only mentioned because she challenged my academic background and of trying to inflict my viewpoint on others. She really must feel threatened for some reason. If you really want to know I have also been called to the Bar and, until family came along, practised in good Chambers. Now will she answer the question she's been ducking for a long time: would she require a conscientious objector to fight and kill on the ground that other people have a need and a right to be defended? I would still like to hear the answer even if she cannot give it without further accusations of dishonesty etc.

[ElkeDagMeisje]

Whats with the third person? This is laughable Cat, if it weren't for the fact that there are a lot of very strange pro-lifers around, who like to infiltrate all forms of social media, because for some reason they think people will believe their madness. I'd lay a bet (not only on your nonsense being a pack of lies, which is pretty evident from the fact that you don't know what subject you need to study to become any kind of lawyer and can't engage in any kind of basic legal reasoning) that you are a middle aged man who has a bit of an obsession with posting on this and similar threads. There was an odd one called Burke who was posting last week about beating up women when they didn't respond to his hassling them. One and the same I suspect.

[CatWithKittens]

Ten Let's leave aside your health care practitioner who commits or assists in an act of euthanasia, which would almost certainly be criminal conduct, and your acts of discrimination which are unlawful. Otherwise, dealing with lawful beliefs, I think the essential difference between the doctor who opposes termination or contraception and your examples is that such a doctor believes that these practices concern life and death. As bumbleymummy points out that is exactly the rationale of the BMA's position. Funnily enough, given one of your examples, I did meet a school cook who refused to work with Halal meat as a result of which the school changed its purchasing policy. Fortunately for ease of decision making the school had no Muslim children, so that potentially headline making clash of beliefs was not present.

[CatWithKittens]

And still she doesn't answer the question. I shall waste no more time on her - if I did not have a reasonably thick skin and did not believe in freedom of speech, even for the very intellectaully challenged, I would report her posts. As it is I leave the fair minded to judge.

[TenForward82]

Ten Let's leave aside your health care practitioner who commits or assists in an act of euthanasia, which would almost certainly be criminal conduct, and your acts of discrimination which are unlawful.
Yes, let's, because I don't have the foggiest what you're talking about. I can't even really follow the thread of most of what you've written, I'm sorry to say.

Cat, stop talking in third person, it's passive aggressive. Elke also doesn't deserve her posts reported. Chill out.

[HelenaDove]

bettyberry


I totally agree As a childfree by choice woman who realised by the time i was 21 that i didnt want children i did ask to be sterilized at 24 28 30 and was refused each time.

I was on the combined Pill from late teens to early twenties Then Norplant for 3 years from 1994 to 1997.

From 2003 to 2008 it was the depo injection

For 3 months late last year it was the Mini Pill. Ive always struggled with my weight and while all this was not the main reason for that , it doesnt help. And because ive lost the weight now i choose to remain celibate Ive lost 10 stone and ive worked bloody hard. I dont want DC and pregnancy and contraception contributes to weight gain. DH is unable to have sex anymore due to disability and he had a low drive before that so it doesnt make any difference to our lives really It did used to depress me but ive come to terms with it now.

[SmillasSenseOfSnow]

And now in the same breath as denying being abusive she accuses me, without any foundation whatsoever, of lying about my academic credentials

If you really believe it is without foundation then I suspect you cannot grasp just how badly you are writing. I'm another person who simply cannot believe your claims, because they conflict with the manner in which you are making them.

[Lurkedforever1]

ten I think cat was aiming that at me, although as she hasn't actually answered any of my points I can't be sure.
I'd also add that rattling off where you went to uni or what degree/ profession you've been in to try and convince people your dodgy reasoning skills are worth listening to is a home goal. I don't give a toss if cat is Lord justice cat of the court of appeal, head of international medical ethics, and has 40 degrees in the subject. I'm not about to agree.

(See what I did there, my first class honours degree in smartarse from Oxbridge, post grad at Harvard dissertation in not believing everything I read on a forum, my current position as head of mi5s bullshit department and my brownie cooking badge allowed me to do the whole post aimed at cat in the third person)

[bumbleymummy]

"Why do doctors deserve special treatment when it comes to female reproduction? GREAT question especially MALE drs/pharmacists/whatever!"

Why especially male? Surely if your argument is that doctors should not be allowed to refuse to treatment for ethical reasons then that should apply across the board regardless of their sex? Also, as pointed out up thread, female reproduction isn't the only issue for conscientious objection.

Isn't indirect discrimination something that applies to everyone but has a worse effect on one group compared to others? Failure to supply the contraceptive pill or refer for abortion is only going to impact women because of biology. So isn't that just direct discrimination? Or would a doctor refusing to perform circumcision be indirectly discriminating against men?

[ElkeDagMeisje]

Well, there is apparently a male pill, along with condoms and male sterilisation, so I would say its more likely to be indirect discrimination. Unless you take the female contraceptive pill on its own or similar. But that just my opinion. Its obviously even more condemning if it constitutes direct discrimination. And yy to your last question.

The alternative would be to make health boards and possibly individual doctors liable in law for any losses or injuries suffered as a result of a failure to prescribe contraception. I guess the only reason that's not happened yet is that the women most likely to accept a one-time refusal to prescribe contraception from one doctor are those less likely to speak out and make a fuss about it, as opposed to simply going away and accepting the consequences.

Honestly, refusing to prescribe contraception has no place in the 21st Century!

[bumbleymummy]

Just to be clear, I don't personally understand why someone would refuse to prescribe contraception but I don't think the right to conscientious objection should be removed. I don't think people should be forced into doing things they don't agree with. Nor do I think a doctor's worth/ability should be judged based on their refusal to perform certain procedures.