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?

Frankly I am astounded by the intolerance and bigotry from some on this thread.
Being anti-abortion is not the same as being anti-gay. Whether you share the view or not it is not IMPOSSIBLE to understand that people feel strongly that abortion is killing. This is very different to believing that a book once said that men who sleep with men are BAD.

Usually it is the anti-abortionist stance that frigates me; it is unusual for me to feel so frustrated with the pro-choice view, but rarely is it expressed as ridiculously as it has been here.

Irritates rather than frigates!

Totoro are you saying that a moral objection without a religious basis has less merit than a moral objection with a religious basis?

clem - it's because these doctors, by refusing to offer abortion referrals, are not lowering the abortion rate. They are simply putting a delay in the system so that women are forced to get riskier later abortions - i.e. they are compromising the health of their patients for their own religious beliefs. That contradicts the basic principle of 'do no harm' that all doctors are supposed to abide by.

Clemette, thanks for the insult but I've not been equating homophobia with this issue. However it is discrimination for reasons stated above. The medication and procedures are legal so I think it is appropriate to question the reasoning and justification of a small percentage of GPs who have a moral or whatever objection to providing this service. And saying that abortion is killing winds me right up because blocking or refusing abortions endangers women. Even when the Gp is referring the individual on, they are still passing their judgement which is not their job and again, does women harm.

we are bloody lucky to live in a country where we can get contraception and abortion, free. If some doctors have moral objections, that's fair enough

A doctor who objects to abortion on non-religious grounds purely and simply hates women, so I wouldn't want him/her treating me.

What if all of a sudden, ALL of them had moral objections? What then? Like in Ireland and other places, is that fair enough?

Well, given that I will still be practising and I am pro-choice...
As for Ireland, that is not individual doctors, that is the law.

Teaandhugs, that is not how it works at all. They refer to someone else immediately. If they don't they are breaking the law. And in fact, most women who opt for abortion don't involve their GPs face to face.

SGB that is a ridiculous thing to say and I suppose you might be treated by more doctors sharing that view than you imagine because many doctors who feel that way deliberately opt not to become GPs but practice in other fields so their "misogyny" doesn't get in the way of things like treating breast cancer...

Whereas a doctor who objects to abortion on religious grounds.....?

Actually, in the interests of transparency, they don't legally have to refer to someone else immediately.

The GMC "Personal Beleifs and Medical Practice" guidance states:

" 21. Patients may ask you to perform, advise on, or refer them for a treatment or procedure which is not prohibited by law or statutory code of practice in the country where you work, but to which you have a conscientious objection7. In such cases you must tell patients of their right to see another doctor with whom they can discuss their situation and ensure that they have sufficient information8 to exercise that right. In deciding whether the patient has sufficient information, you must explore with the patient what information they might already have, or need.

22. In the circumstances described in paragraph 21, if the patient cannot readily make their own arrangements to see another doctor you must ensure that arrangements are made, without delay, for another doctor to take over their care. You must not obstruct patients from accessing services or leave them with nowhere to turn. Whatever your personal beliefs may be about the procedure in question, you must be respectful of the patient?s dignity and views.

23. You must be open with patients - both in person and in printed materials such as practice leaflets - about any treatments or procedures which you choose not to provide or arrange because of a conscientious objection, but which are not otherwise prohibited. " <a class="break-all" href="http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/personal_beliefs.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/personal_beliefs.asp</a>

So, if a Doctor believes that a patient is able to sort out an alternative appointment, they can just direct them to do so. If they feel that they are unable to do that themselves, then they must ask another doctor to see the patient immediately.

Leftwingharpie

Totoro are you saying that a moral objection without a religious basis has less merit than a moral objection with a religious basis? hmm

Um, no. I am saying a medical doctor should understand that the MAP is not an abortion and is basically birth control and therefore have no moral objection to it. If he can't understand it he shouldn't be practicing..or should be sent back to medical school.

You don't have to be religious though to object on moral grounds to something that prevents a fertilised egg from implanting.

lougle does that last bit 'being open about procedures they wont provide' mean that i can ask my gp surgery if any if them hold this view? And then therefore i could request to see a different dr?

The distinction between 'birth control' and 'abortion' lies with whether you believe life starts at the point of conception (abortion) or implantation (birth control) or even the first heartbeat (birth control, again).

If you believe that life starts at conception, then any drug or device which prevents the fertilised egg implanting in the womb, by making the womb lining too thin to accept the egg, for example, would be viewed as abortifacient.

5madthings Yes, it does, I think. You should be able to ask if there are any doctors who do not refer for abortion or precribe MAP.

Thats good to know lougle and i will be asking! Imo it is information that should be given to all patients so they can then choose to use that dr or not, that way a eoman shouldnt end up in a position whete she is refused treatment and has to see another gp.

I'd be mortified to be refused treatment. Surely there's no sensitive way of saying "I disapprove so strongly on moral grounds that I won't be involved in any way".