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

[msrisotto]

Or refer for abortions? They are legally protected due to their religious rights.
Just coming out of the thread where two gay chaps were refused a double room at a B&B due to the owners religious bigotry. B&B owners lost the legal battle as they are running a business and are not legally allowed to discriminate against who they provide a service to based on their sexuality.

But GPs are allowed to refuse a particular service to women on religious grounds? Is that ok? Really? Anyone?

Yeah I know the law supports this but I don't agree, hence the thread. Women can be sexist too by the way.

"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.

Maybe those GPs are in the wrong job. The NHS offers contraceptive services therefore, IMO, they shouldn't opt out of this part of their job. And it does convey a judgement and discriminate when they refuse to offer a part of the service to some people.

^"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

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?

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?

"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.

Yes it's legal, we've established that thank you. However, as this issue only affects women, it certainly is a sexist issue. And you're wrong to say that it goes against the hippocratic oath because you have to make a choice. Prioritise the grown woman, or her unborn potential child. Prioritising the child means harming the adult woman. Which would be hypocritical.

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.

Ok, fine. I work in the health care profession. I don't think i'll treat you though because my conscience gives me some vague inclination that you're a bad un. My conscience/morals etc, my choice. Screw you all!

Joke by the way. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

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.

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.

I could have a moral standpoint against treating people for alcohol related problems. Or prescribing antibiotics as they kill bacteria which are, after all, divine according to my faith...

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.

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!

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?

What about do no mental harm? I'd be pretty distressed at being forced to continue a pregnancy I didn't want for whatever reason.

They are not being forced are they? They are being referred to a doctor who can help them. I can understand how some doctors do not wish to partake in ending a human life as long as they refer that patient on and intially advertise this then that is fair.

GPs who refuse to refer those who want abortions, or to prescribe the MAP are not necessarily religious, so this isn't a matter of religious privilege.

At our local surgery, there is one GP who won't provide those services themselves (it's in the surgery leaflet), and I know for a fact that GP is not religious. It is clearly just a moral issue for them.

I do think the regulations should be tightened, to ensure that no GP who refuses to carry out these services can drag their feet, to avoid delay and thus further distress to a woman at an already difficult time.

I've been with my dr since I was 13 and my parents registered me. I have no idea if he would object to prescribing the MAP or refering me for an abortion. My children are already registered with him, too. We dont have any signs to explain if any drs object so if I would have to ask the receptionist rather than risk wasting my time and possible emotional distress. Such signs should be right there in the waiting room so they cannot be missed. I'm with SGB that if they hold such views they should announce them with no room for error.

I dont buy either the argument that it breaks the oath to harm nonewhat about the woman? what about her mental health? she is the patient after all or that they do not wish to end a life when "life" in utero is a matter of interpretation and it is legal to obtain a termination up to 24 weeks. It is not for individual drs to decide when life starts nor whether it is morally right to abort.

Out of interest, are GPs allowed to refuse to provide any contraceptive services?
I did encounter a chemist once who didn't sell condoms because the owners were Catholic, but they would dispense prescriptions for the pill if presented - I don't know whether that's because they legally had to or it was a moral decision that the pill might not be for contraceptive purposes.

Then there was the GP who told me that if I took the pill but didn't admit to her I was having sex (which I wasn't), then I would have to pay for it as it wasn't for contraception. Bemused chemist told me he couldn't charge me for it and it would act as contraception whether I took it for that reason or not...

notcitrus technically the GP was correct. If you are prescribed the contraceptive pill for a non-contraceptive reason, such as acne control, and the GP does not endorse the prescription with the ♀ sign, then a prescription charge is payable. www.psnc.org.uk/pages/patient_charges.html

For example, a woman who is sterilised but prescribed the contraceptive pill for hormone balancing, would have to pay the prescription charge because the pill is not being used as a contraceptive.

"♀" should have been the female sign (o with a + underneath)

I am sorry, but a doctor who has no religion but is against the MAP for "moral reasons" is an idiot and shouldn't be practicing.