Home › Crime, Courts & Public Safety › Courts
Disputes over religion, healthcare hit courts
Download this story as a podcast!
Rob Varela / Star staff Dr. Royal Dean prays with patient Sharon Heiser of Simi Valley during a visit at his Simi Valley office.
STORY TOOLS 
More from CourtsTake faith out of medicine. Separate church from stethoscope.
Dr. Catherine Kim of Simi Valley can't do it. Her practice as an obstetrician-gynecologist is based on medical science. But her convictions as a born-again Christian sculpt every aspect of her life, from the Bible stories she reads to her kids before bedtime to the prayers she offers people who visit her office.
Because of her beliefs, Kim won't perform abortions and won't provide emergency contraceptives that are used after intercourse. She won't give referrals either because that would be participating in acts she sees as immoral.
"Just like they have the right to choose, I have a right to choose," she said, suggesting that pushing doctors to mute the influence of faith on their practice is discrimination. "The doctor has the right to act and practice according to his or her convictions."
The limits of that ability are being tested in showdowns involving California's highest courts, the federal government and doctors exercising what is called the right to conscience. That means they won't perform a procedure or treat a patient because of moral or religious beliefs.
Ethicists and patient advocates say the right of conscience is well protected. The conflict comes when the doctor's beliefs collide with the patient's needs or wants.
"Your religious rights don't mean you can use them to undermine someone's civil rights. No one's rights go as far as the horizon," said bioethicist Nancy Berlinger, mapping out the battleground. "You have an absolute right to your religious beliefs as long as they're not hurting someone else."
Gay marriage to insemination
The fight tosses handfuls of controversial issues — discrimination, healthcare access and religious freedom — into one steaming stew. And in a way, the current debate began with gay marriage.
In May, the California Supreme Court ruled gays and lesbians are entitled to the same marriage rights as heterosexuals and are protected by the same civil rights laws. Two months later, justices ruled on the case of Guadalupe Benitez, who claims doctors at a fertility clinic in San Diego County refused to inseminate her because she's a lesbian.
The doctors said their Christian beliefs preclude them from offering insemination to any unmarried couple. Benitez ended up at another clinic that wasn't covered by her insurance, meaning she had to spend thousands of dollars, said her lawyer, Jennifer Pizer.
In a case many expect to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, justices ruled doctors' religious rights don't allow them to discriminate against groups protected by civil rights laws. The doctors could have legally refused to perform insemination for all patients. But they can't perform the procedure for some people and not for gays and lesbians.
Pizer said specialists who can't live with those choices should probably reconsider their profession.
"If a person has religious views that some women should become pregnant and some shouldn't, then the duty is probably on the (doctors) to avoid the conflict by focusing on another area of medicine," she said.
Critics say the court tried to balance religious and civil rights but ended up looking like a juggler spinning one too many plates.
The ruling could force doctors into performing procedures they believe are morally wrong, said Dr. Gene Rudd, an obstetrician-gynecologist and senior vice president of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.
"Why would we want patients to force doctors to participate against their will?" he said. "It's like forcing a judge to sit in on a case he shouldn't deliberate."
A doctor's right to say no
If the state ruling forms a border on religion's intersection on medicine, the federal government is trying to reinforce the fence that offers protection to doctors who won't perform abortions.
A proposed regulation by U.S. Health and Human Services would take away federal funding from clinics or hospitals that don't protect the right to conscience. The rule affirms a doctor's ability to refuse to perform abortions, receive medical training related to the procedure or to refer patients who want to end a pregnancy to other doctors.
The protections already exist, but the regulation is needed because medical schools, some clinics and other doctors pressure their colleagues, Rudd said. About 40 percent of the doctors in the Christian medical association said they've felt discrimination because of their faith, he said.
"Most of the people who are being told they have to do something against their conscience don't know they have laws to protect them," he said.
Opponents worry the regulation is worded so broadly it could be used by doctors who don't want to give their patients emergency contraceptives. California Attorney General Jerry Brown wrote a letter to federal officials complaining the proposed regulation conflicts with state laws aimed at making sure people have access to birth control.
"Ultimately it's the patient that ends up suffering because they're denied access to services," said Christine Lyon, vice president for external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties. "It's a very far-reaching change to the rules."
Guaranteeing patients access
Many people contend the balancing act between a doctor's religion and medicine should pivot on referrals. Physicians tell stories of a Mormon fertility specialist who wouldn't perform insemination on single woman and a devout Catholic who wouldn't provide condoms or birth control pills.
"I don't think it's wrong as long as it's disclosed to the patient and they're given viable options," said Dr. Rick Buyalos, a Thousand Oaks infertility specialist.
Jay Smith is executive director of the gay rights group Ventura County Rainbow Alliance. Both his parents are doctors, and he argues they should have the right to say no as long as they help patients find other doctors.
"I don't want to scream down on religion. People have religious convictions. They're very important," he said.
Some doctors see a referral as a way of participating in a procedure and even endorsing it. They won't do it.
"It's up to the patient," said Kim of the responsibility to find an abortion provider. "I don't want to be involved doing an act that's not according to my conscience and convictions."
Patient advocates argue that making a referral doesn't always guarantee a person will get the care they need.
"For me it comes down to access," said Lyon, putting herself in the position of a woman in a small town where doctors refuse to perform abortions. "I'm poor. I don't have a car. I have no means of transportation. I have one clinic in my city, and they deny me access and they refer me to a clinic 50 miles away. How am I going to get there?"
Divine intervention
The struggle to define boundaries is complicated because faith and medicine are already intertwined. A survey published in the Archives of Surgery last month said 57 percent of the people polled believe God can save them from disease when doctors cannot. About 72 percent said physicians should be compelled to perform procedures even when they think there is almost no chance of success.
Doctors say they deal with faith and morality routinely, ranging from a Jehovah's Witness' refusal to accept blood transfusions to decisions on whether to prescribe medical marijuana.
In a handful of offices, faith is a dominant presence. Dr. Royal Dean, a Simi Valley family physician, is an evangelical Christian who hosts Bible study sessions in his home, volunteers his time to the Salvation Army and goes on medical missions to the Philippines.
When new patients come to his office, he asks about their faith, believing their answers will help him understand their views on healing.
He prays with the patients who are willing and offers silent words for those who are not.
He bases his decisions on his understanding of medicine and anatomy. But he doesn't question that faith plays a role.
"I don't want to get in the way of how he heals," Dean said.
Miriam Piven Cotler, a bioethicist at CSU Northridge, said doctors have not only a legal but also an ethical right to act out their faith. But she thinks the patient's beliefs and desires have to come first.
"It's the patient's illness. It's the patient's body," she said. "It's not about the doctor. It's about the patient."
Posted by NowHearThis on September 19, 2008 at 1:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Doc has the right to hold stern to her beliefs, just as the female abortion supporters have the right to kill unborn babies.
And the courts shouldn't legislate from the bench.
Posted by JJ2014 on September 19, 2008 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...
Posted by hemlock1262 on September 19, 2008 at 5:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NowHearThis apparently doesn't understand how the whole "doctor" thing works.
When I was on the battlefield in Iraq, I asked the battalion surgeon -- a confirmed atheist -- if he would refuse aid to a wounded born-again Christian. Of course not, he said -- that would be unethical and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Even though you reject, on principled beliefs, that born-again Christian's faith in an Invisible Man in the Clouds?
Yes, said Doc, even then.
The funny thing was, a born-again Christian surgeon at the Combat Support Hospital said the same thing about treating wounded Iraqis. Even though Doc 2 rejected those "heathen" Muslim beliefs, it was incumbent upon him as a physician to provide medical treatment.
If NowHearThis had his way, Doc would refuse to treat born-agains because he rejects their beliefs on principled grounds. And had he done so, PFC Smith, father of three, would have bled to death in the sands of Iraq.
But at least Doc would have been true to his beliefs, eh NowHearThis? And that's the important thing.
Posted by JJones on September 19, 2008 at 5:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SUMMARIES OF 1400 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MEDICAL LAWSUITS & OTHER COURT CASES
The following website summarizes over 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
The following website summarizes over 500 Jehovah's Witnesses Employment related lawsuits, etc, including DOZENS of court cases in which JW Employees refused blood transfusions, and/or other cases involving Worker's Comp, medical, health, and disability issues:
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES
http://jwemployees.bravehost.com
Posted by christafrankmiller on September 19, 2008 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
they are not being denied life saving treatment...they are being denied "luxury" birth control choices...i am sure that if their life was in danger these drs would do what it took, regardless of their religious beliefs!!the battlefield and birth control are two different things...and people wanting to be inseminated...thats just silly to be required to do that if its against your belief...maybe people should research the drs you choose and see what they believe in and where they stand on things...
people die and children die because they done believe in shots, transfusion and all sorts of things...its their choice...its very sad and i dont agree with it, but im not god!
the same thing applies with gay marriage...if the pastors/churches dont want to marry them, they shouldnt have to...they are entitled to their beliefs and rights just as anyone else is...
Posted by ssakoian on September 19, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Religion is great, used properly and personally. But if you are in medicine as a doctor, your job is to treat people. If you don't like the laws in the state of California, have the courtesy to post it on your door: We refuse to treat people for ____, ____ or who are _____. You fill in the blanks.
If your patient depends on your knowledge for medical care, and you fail them, you are just like a parent who decides not to feed your kids because you don't like it, or send them to school because you don't feel like it, or whatever; you are failing in the Hippocratic oath.
Would you, as a physician, appreciate being in a car accident, and then the paramedics coming to rescue only to say, "Oh, this person is a _____, so I will not save him"? Would you like to have someone deny you treatment because of your skin color, hair color, or religious beliefs? Probably not. But, on the other hand, you will be dead sooner and on your way to your next adventure.
Being in the medical field means being there to take care of a patient's needs. If you disagree, get out of the profession.
Posted by jz_4_JC on September 19, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps the words of Thomas Jefferson, on the wall of his memorial in Washington D.C can help guide us. "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are a gift of God?...." Let the doctor have the liberty to honor the One who gave us life.
Posted by ironwoman on September 19, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good for her...standing up for what she believes in. That's right...pro-choicers can't have it both ways.
Posted by tweetybyrdrt on September 19, 2008 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Abortion is Murder, Homosexuality is morally corrupt. The same doctors that refused to kill an unborn child or help create a child for a morally bankrupt family would likely give his or her own life to save either.
Posted by keepermel on September 19, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Again.....NO WHERE was anyone saying that doctors would not treat people with medical, life saving needs. These are elective procedures or desires. If women can not be forced to stop having abortions, then doctors should not be forced to do them. If a doctor denied giving the fatal injection to a person on death row, no one would argue it being against his oath....the oath to save lives...that same oath that could be a reason some doctors refuse abortions. They could see it as taking a life instead of saving a life.
Posted by surfchicxo on September 19, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with most of you, as it is a doctor's responsibility to treat patients accordingly, despite what their personal beliefs may be. If everyone took their personal opinions and beliefs into the workplace, then we would have one discriminatory country. When they became doctors they are acknowledging that they will treat and take care of whomever, however necessary. It is not their right to make choices of whether or not someone should be offered emergency contraception after they engage in sexual acts, and it is esp. not rigth for them to not provide referrals if someone has chosen to have an abortion. It is that persons diven right to do what they want with their own body. It is fine if the doctor does not agree but he/she should not deny them those rights.
Posted by GDOG5 on September 19, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If a patient disagrees, they should look for another doctor, and not deny the doctor their rights.
Posted by gonzoknife on September 19, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If a doctor has a problem providing legal medical care, they shouldn't be a doctor. End of story. Birth control isn't a "luxury" any more than other medications.
This talk of "deny the doctor's rights" is a charade. The doctor's rights are not being infringed by providing legal medical services. Doctors have to deal with behavior by patients they don't approve of daily. That's part of the job. Get over it. If you don't like it, get a new job.
The ramifications of this thinking are much more serious than is being discussed. Do police have the right to not help people who have done things they disagree with? Can a fireman refuse to put the fire out at a gay couple's house because he disagrees with them? This is insane people. Being gay isn't a choice. Getting pregnant is often not a choice (and is a fact of life - people will NEVER stop having sex). Being a doctor is a choice.
One final point. I guarantee (from experience) that Dr. Kim does not let patients know her beliefs up front. If she is going to refuse standard medical care, not telling the patients up front is extremely unethical and hints at intentional deceit.
Posted by hotwildflower on September 19, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
She is an OBGYN, if someone doesn't agree with her practices, go elsewhere! You can't FORCE her to be a part of this anymore than you can force someone NOT to have an abortion.
You can't have it both ways!
Posted by handyhood on September 19, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Doctors have rights too! All you people who are saying that a doctor needs to refer a patient to someone else are full of bahwhoey! There is a difference between a contraceptive and a life threatening situation. I can't fathom any christian Doctor not treating someone for a life threatening problem, but to get a contraceptive for having sex after the the deed is done? I agree with Christafrankmiller 100%. I also agree TUCHUSER, hemlock123 never gets it right!
Posted by Comments on September 19, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ChristaFrankMiller I think you're so far off the mark and your analogies are also way off. A church denying to marry a gay/lesbian couple is in no way the same as a physician denying treatment. Although off topic, I thought I'd remind you that there is a BIG difference b/w a civil marriage and a religious marriage. BTW, the civil one is the only one that is legally recognized. You and others state that these drs are not denying life saving treatment? How do you know that? What would they do if a woman showed up needing an abortion to save her life? Would they still turn her away by holding true to their convictions? Is that considered a "luxury" reproductive treatment in your opinion? How about the case of a child who is pregnant due to rape or incest? Still a "luxury?"
You also state, "thats just silly to be required to do that if its against your belief..." Really, silly? Drs enter professions knowing that there will be certain things they may not agree with. There are some jobs where you just don't get to pick and choose due to personal convictions. I found it surprising for you to point this out given your husband's profession, which you point out at every opportunity on these discussion boards. I admire and respect your husband for his service, as I do all our service men and women. However, I can guarantee you that many of them are being required to do things that go against their own personal beliefs and convictions. They don't get to pick and choose and is it "silly" for us to expect them to do the job they've volunteerd to do? They don't get a menu of job responsibilities and then get to check off the ones they will and won't do - they're required to do them all. And don't tell me it's not the same - it absolutely is the same!
In terms of our part of the country it's easy to say "just go find another provider." I actually agree with that. I personally would NEVER want this OB as my dr. I don't need a dr judging me. However, there are many, many parts of the country where there is only one dr and one pharmacy. Should they have the right to deny care? I don't think so. If these individuals find parts of their jobs so distasteful then they ought to find another profession. There have been pharmacies in rurual, remote parts of the country who refused to sell the morning after pill based upon personal convictions. Sorry, your convictions don't belong in people's personal lives. If there were many other options in town, then I might not care (as much!), but there often isn't.
Again, if you are uncomfortable with a job's requirements then you need to be in a different job.
Posted by ebrockway on September 19, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
C'mon Tom;
This Opinion Piece should probably be moved to the Opinion Section.
Your first words;
"Take faith out of medicine. Separate church from stethoscope."
So we know where your heart is before we even start reading, good.
So now we're going to mandate every Dr must when requested, erase a woman's "oopsie" for her, regardless of the Dr's moral beliefs?
Do we really have to have your non-belief shoved down our throats?
Funny, next you'll write a piece on the critical shortage of qualified doctors and nurses, many of which are getting sick of being told how and where and why to pracice medicine.
There's another Dr down the hall, there's Planned Parenthood if that fails. You really want to help? Donate to them so they can provide transportation for the "I'm poor. I don't have a car. I have no means of transportation. I have one clinic in my city, and they deny me access and they refer me to a clinic 50 miles away. How am I going to get there?" patients.
Posted by aliceblois on September 19, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am amazed at the viewpoints of people who believe doctors should be forced to perform abortions. What a scary place this would be if that were true. If you truly believe in a woman's right to choose, you should also extend the same rights to the doctor's right to choose. Pregnancy is not an illness nor is it life threatening. The notion that doctors should be forced to provide referrals is even off based. Patients have responsibilities too--they can get on the phone themselves and find a doctor who will perform abortions. There are plenty of online referral services.
If I desired to be an amputee by choice should a doctor be forced to cut off my healthy leg? Should the doctor be required to provide me with a referral to another doctor? Is it the doctor's problem if I live in a small town with no other doctors and I don't have a car? Ok--an extreme example, but you get the picture. Who knows--once people get bored with piercings and tattoos, maybe amputations will come into vogue.
This entire article underscores the can of worms that is opened by scientific progress. The more power we have, the more ethical issues we face. Good things can also lead to huge ethical dilemmas. I'm not against progress, I'm just pointing out that people often overlook the ethical issues that come with it until it is too late to avoid them.
I think the solution is for all doctors to inform new patients of the limits of their practice due to faith reasons. Then it is up to the patient to choose whether to stay or find another doctor. Leave the courts out of it.
Posted by cassandra2 on September 19, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While the doc's entitled to her beliefs, she and others like her do owe their patients and perspective patients disclosure up front of the limitations of their practice. It shouldn't come as a bad surprise in the middle of treatment. Maybe a signed agreement along with fees and charges for missed appointments, a signed notification of the doc's limitations so that it is expected by the perspective patient.
As for the lesbian wanting a service that hetero women are given, this seems like an issue for the medical insurance company. Why would the insurance company be allowed to contract with only facilities that limit care in a discriminatory manner. Possibly infertility is not a condition they want to cover at all, but if they offer it, it should not be on a discriminatory basis any more than they should be allowed to by pass on the basis of ethnicity or the patient's religion.
IT IS IMPORTANT, THEREFORE, TO ELECT REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE NOT REGULATION PHOBIC. We see all around us in the financial market meltdown the bad results of this free market uber alles perspective. Insurance companies are not in business to foster equity and justice. Government, however, has a responsibility to do so.
Last I heard, one did not need a prescription for morning after meds. Has this changed? If not, then the onus would fall on the pharmacist to dispense.
Posted by ebrockway on September 19, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gonzoknife;
So now abortions are “birth control”? Little retroactive wouldn’t you say?
If a woman comes in wanting “birth control”, I’m sure this doctor would have no problem.
Again, when there's a critical shortage of OB/GYNs because they leave the Nanny State of California, you going to call for legislation to force them to stay?
Posted by ebrockway on September 19, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra2;
Yes, they should disclose up front what services they will not perform. Of course, that'll make them a target for the militant pro-abortion crowd, no doubt draw legal action as well.
If you are a practicing OB/GYN in this State I feel for you. Not just for this issue alone, either.
Posted by Comments on September 19, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Aliceblois, yes, I think your example was extreme. By amputations I suspect that you were referring to amputating limbs. As a reminder, abortion is legal in this country. No dr is being asked to do something illegal.
That aside, drs are indeed asked to perform "elective" amputations. Many women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer elect to have their breast(s) removed as a prophylactic. Many women also choose to have their ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix removed in order to prevent cancer. And some do so for other medical reasons that aren't necessarily life saving. I know that there are some oncologists and surgeons who are uncomfortable with performing mastectomys on healthy breasts. However, I don't know of any who have denied doing so for personal religious convictions. Every time I hear of a woman who has made this choice it effects me. I can't imagine having to make a choice like that and I wonder if I'd do the same. However, I never question that the woman made the right choice for herself.
Posted by BeaHappi on September 19, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we have many choices in health care providers so at first I thought, "what's the big deal? just go to another doctor." But in places where there aren't that many doctors or in the case of insurance limitations, one doctor may be a patient's only option.
Wow, this is a tough one. I totally appreciate the physician's personal beliefs but also wonder about this crossing over into patient care.
In the artificial insemination case (doc won't do for unmarried couples)...what would have happened if the same-sex couple WAS married? I mean, today it can happen in California.
Honestly, I don't even know what the religious beliefs of my family doc and ob/gyn are. Why? Because they don't bring it into their practice and it doesn't come up in conversation when they are treating me and my family. They could worship satan for all I know! Kidding but you know what I mean.
As physicians, my opinion is that the Hippocratic Oath should come before personal beliefs when treating patients. Just my opinion.
Posted by johnnsc on September 19, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Every individual has the right to believe in God as they choose and cannot be discriminated against due to their beliefs.
If a non-Christian in is in a doctor’s office and asked to pray a Christian prayer, I would consider this discrimination. What would the doctor do if the patient says..."OK doctor, lets say a Islamic or Hindu pray"????
Myself, I would rather go to a doctor that treats me medically, not spiritually.
Posted by Comments on September 19, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ebrockway, you state:
"If a woman comes in wanting “birth control”, I’m sure this doctor would have no problem."
Really, you're "sure" about that? Seems to me that birth control would be against a christian fundamentalist's religious convictions as well? Many consider the "morning after" pill to be birth control. And, certain other forms of birth control might be considered very early abortions. Indeed, if we're going to go this far, then even "natural" family planning could be considered immoral. After all intentionally planning to ensure that sperm and egg don't meet is birth control. Will she discuss birth control at all. Or, does she simply just want to deliver babies?
Posted by hotwildflower on September 19, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait a second, St. John's is a Catholic hospital and OBGYN's are unable to preform pregnancy prevention measures within the hopsital.
Are they next going to go after all Catholic Hospitals? These hospitals were started by nuns as a religious facility...but the state is able to dictate how they run their facility?
Again, people cry about separation of church and state, but only when it applies to their cause??
You want it both ways and you can't have it.
It's just like the women's lib'ers who want women to have the same rights as men but bash Palin because she has different views which apparently makes her less of a woman?
Get over it, and quit crying about everything that doesn't go YOUR way!
Posted by calisurf on September 19, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dr. Kim is an amazing doctor. She saved my life and my sons life when other doctors dismissed my syptoms. She has delivered all of my friends children as well. I understand a doctor has a right to provide their patients with the best care possible. But the reason people came to this country in the first place was to be able to practive there religous beliefs without persection. If doctor Kim does not feel comfortable giving abortions there are many other doctors including in her office that will do the procedure. She is not denying anyone care they cannot recieve anywhere else, there are abortion clinics throughout the county. She is very upfront with her patients about the things she will and will not do. She does NOT judge anyone, she does NOT sit you down and pretend to be your parent and discuss her beliefs with you and give you a slap on the wrist. Here's a good question would you really want a doctor to perform a surgery they didnt really want to do? Dr. Kim is an amazing doctor, for anyone else to say differently is pure ignorance. No one is judging you for your choices dont judge her for hers.
Posted by vcmann on September 19, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Tom Kisken is wrong; this physician/religion quandry was going on way before the supreme court decision. That bit about this issue starting with gay marriage looks like a piece of planted "red meat" to me. I am disappointed in him, he seemed like a genuine reporter but now looks more like a pot stirrer.
Posted by Comments on September 19, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh and just to be clear, many women who seek abortions from OB/GYNs don't do so because of an "oopsie" as one poster so elegantly phrased her point. There are so many heartbreaking scenarios in which couples make a decision to abort. Take the following scenario:
A woman chooses Dr Kim as her OB when she becomes pregnant. She and her husband are thrilled to be pregnant and are excitedly looking forward to the birth of their baby. During a routine ultra sound it's determined that the baby has no brain and there's no chance of survival. The couple make the painstaking decision to end the pregnancy. They are a couple of deep faith and the decision isn't an easy one. When they tell Dr Kim their decision are they turned away? Imagine the horror and guilt this dr will have caused. There are so many scenarios like this one.
Thankfully I've never been in this position, but I do have friends who have been. Fortunately for them their OBs were compassionate and helped them through the most difficult time in their lives.
I have lost babies (to early miscarriage and to later pregnancy loss) and it's an awful thing to go through. Mine were entirely against my control and I personally would've done all I could to maintain the pregnancies. However, I don't at all question why other women make the decisions that they do. Drs, especially OB/GYNs know what their profession calls for when they sign up.
Posted by ebrockway on September 19, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Comments;
I know that as to "birth control" ie the pill, the pope says nope. That's Catholic.
I guess it's possible an OB/GYN would have a problem dispensing birth control, but I've never heard of it.
It's depressing to me that we've "progressed" in this country to a place where abortion is expected to be dispensed in the same manner as the pill.
Posted by jeffinventura on September 19, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Doctors who discriminate on the services they choose to perform should NOT be included in health care plans.
No one should be forced outside of their health care plan because the only doctor in the plan CHOOSES to refuse to offer treatments.
GOD BLESS!
Posted by BeaHappi on September 19, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In regards to abortion, there are plenty of places where they are performed so for someone to complain about a doctor who won't perform one, that's taking it a bit too far.
However, let's say it's a small town with one doctor who opposes abortion for religious reasons. Someone is pregnant, has trouble with the pregnancy, and the choice is abort the pregnancy or the mother dies. What then? What if the pregnant mother and her husband make the horrible choice to abort the pregnancy because they have 4 more little kids at home that need their mother? And if the doctor won't perform it, the mother dies?
Obviously an extreme case but that's why I said that this is a tough one.
It just seems that in California there are a lot of options in regards to medical care. There are planned parenthood clinics that perform abortions. Why would someone push the issue with a doctor who obviously isn't on the same page as them?
And hotwildflower...with all due respect...not all people bash Sarah Palin because she has different views. I bash her because there is no way that she is qualified to be the President of the United States and with the man she is running with, this could be a very real situation. :~)
Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 19, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The right not only of physicians but of other health care workers to abstain from medical procedures they object to on a "moral" or "religious" basis is well established in many instances. It is obviously controversial.
So long as the physician/worker makes these objections known in advance of the undertaking of a patient/client relationship I would have to agree with that right to abstain. I don't think the physician/worker should have the right not to refer the patient elsewhere however.
Anyway, would you really feel safe compelling a physician to provide a service they so strongly object to?
Probably more important are the limitations that health insurers, sometimes at the request of employers, place on reproductive services.
Many insurance companies will provide payment to male clients for Viagra for instance but severely limit or refuse to cover contraceptive care.
This isnt' about the deeply personal actions of say, a doctor who provides an abortion. Insurance companies are big and as many of use have come to find out, pretty impersonal institutions.
Those practices should be not be allowed to occur.
Posted by aliceblois on September 19, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BH--off topic, is she any less qualified than the governor of Arkansas? Truth is most of the bashing revolves around her choice of faith. Ironic in a year we celebrate the presidential nomination of a black man there are many who don't feel a practicing Christian be allowed to be VP.
Sorry--very off topic--and yet also on topic. As a Christian, it is obvious that our society is becoming more and more intolerant of my faith. The least tolerant are those who preach tolerance. The misunderstanding of "separation of church and state" is turning the original intentions (freedom of religion) backwards.
Posted by icanilluminateu on September 19, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad I'm a male :)
Posted by BeaHappi on September 19, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
aliceblois...it's my opinion that the only reason she was selected is because she is a woman. Given the same 'story' but Governor Palin is a man, I don't think that McCain would have selected him.
And I think that those supporting her only because she's a woman are crazy. My opinion...
Comments - great example about a situation that might call for abortion.
Posted by rebel123 on September 19, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Subjecting her patients to her religious beliefs is wrong. She needs to get into a different line of work. Abortion is LEGAL, whether she likes it or not. As is the morning after pill. If she is not willing to provide all legal medical service to her patients, she needs to get another job.
Posted by BeaHappi on September 19, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally I would not choose this doctor either. Or any doctor who brought his/her personal beliefs, life, etc. into their practice. I think that could be awkward.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on September 19, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
... and to think that England, the birthplace of our common law, has now given Muslim Sharia law status, even though women are not treated equally under Sharia law. Soon to follow will be the Netherlands which will reach a Muslim majority within a generation. France can't be far behind.
Posted by aliceblois on September 19, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that McCain was seeking a woman to fill the VP slot. What is so bad about that? It is obviously not the only reason she was selected--she is a very successful governor. Those who do not agree are entitled to their opinion, but she has proven to be a political leader in her state. The witch hunt revolving around Palin comes from those who object to her religious beliefs. Every day there is some new dire warning about some new Palin non-issue--all boldly displayed on the front page of MSN. Now it seems the witch hunt is broadening it's reach to doctors. It seems that more and more our society wants Christians to stay behind closed doors. Is this really what the age of tolerance is bringing?
Posted by cassandra2 on September 19, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To Aliceetcetera--it really frosts me that the most extreme and goofy of the Christian sects lay the loudest and angriest claim to being practicing Christians as if they were the only ones.
There is a Christian left--United Methodists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians and so on. And they represent a far truer linkage to the ideas of Jesus. Many of them walk the walk with rare courage standing up for peace and against genocide and torture and imperialism. Moreover the huge church of Rome has its own martyrs of the left who deserve sainthood better than the reactionary pope who is slated for this honor by the new reactionary pope.
Christianity is a lot broader and deeper than the evangelical crazies. How dare you sully this ancient label by attaching it exclusively to them.
Posted by BeaHappi on September 19, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
alice...I don't want to debate this with you. I've made my choice and obviously you have made yours. God bless America!
Posted by Angelito on September 19, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Doctors, Nurses, Nurse Practitioners, Physisian Assistants have the right to choose as well. If a woman has the right to choose to kill a baby, why can a medical practitioner have the right to save a child, or the right to choose what its immoral. After all, we all take the hypocratic oath to do no harm, and killing a baby is worse than killing an animal. the baby cries when the pieces start getting absorbed by the vacumm canister. yet there is no PETA organization defending their lives, but there are many organizations defending the woman's right to choose. It is therefore fair for the doctors and everyone in the medical field to have a right to choose as well.
Posted by caroldammit on September 19, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This IS a tough one. Here are my humble thoughts:
I don't think that doctors should (or can, for that matter) be forced to perform procedures they object to for reasons of faith, as long as they object across the board to the procedure itself. They should not be allowed to pick and choose whom they feel is worthy of certain procedures. That is clearly discrimination.
Rebel: open heart surgery is also legal, but not all doctors perfom it & as serveral posters have pointed out-why would you want a doctor who doesn't want to treat you, to treat you? Easy enough to find someone else for those of us who have options, but what of those who don't? I think ebrockway may have a good idea there-transportation programs, but who should fund them?
I think the referral part of the story has been misunderstood & pertains not to an objecting doctor finding a willing co-worker for a patient, but to many insurance plans' requirement of "referral" from your primary care physician in order to be treated by another doctor. Should a doctor's abstention from performing certain procedures become known only when said procedures are necessary for the patient, I feel they must be required to provide a referral to another physician. I'm not sure how to make their positions known in advance so that patients can make an informed choice of primary care physician. List every medical option they do or do not provide in your insurance booklet? Doubtful.
The pharmacy issue is less clear cut for me, and I have read quite a few stories about refusal to dispense birth control. As stated above, I don't think anyone should be legally compelled to provide services they object to, however, I don't see filling a prescription as comparable to performing a procedure. I kind of agree that if a person does not want to dispense legal, prescribed medications that they should seek another field of employment. I think. And now my brain hurts so I'll stop thinking and go back to work. ;o)
Posted by caroldammit on September 19, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ps-NO abortion should not be used as birth control! We need to EDUCATE and provide ample access to PREVENTION so that this part of the debate becomes absolutely moot.
Posted by aliceblois on September 19, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BeaHappi--agree! No need to debate. I'm so glad to live in a country where we have the freedom to vote as we choose. As usual, you reply with kindness and grace.
Cassandra--my bad. After reading your response I need to amend my previous post to say that Palin is a practicing "conservative" Christian. I'd hate for your reputation to be sullied by any association to conservative Christians. I'm well aware that there are many Christians with many different political beliefs and I don't believe I implied that wasn't true. Even within conservative Christians there is a vast range of political views, so my apologies if I offended any conservative Christians. My point is that tolerance should extend to all. I'm sorry if that is offensive to you. (wink)
Posted by keepermel on September 19, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now as far as I know the law has not changed for assisted suiside. People who are dying of painful things ask for their doctors to do that, but the doctor not only can say no, if he does it they will go to jail and loose thier licence. And the adults in question are asking for themselves, not an inocent child who can't speak for them self.
As far as abortions for reasons such as a child that will not survive (no brain-as listed above) that would not be killing would it. Also as far as the mother's life verses the babies, that would be a life saving procedure. There are those grey area questions as there are with any moral issue. Stealing is wrong...but my child will starve....what do you do..things like that. But if we can not legislate morality (abortion seekers / same sex unions / kinds of sex (premarital/personal preferences) / ect. Then you can not legislate morality period / personl choice of what you will or will not do (that kid that does not want to cut into a frog in sciece class)/ that doctor that does not want to give an abortion / that doctor that does not want to give the lethal injection to someone on death row / ect. You can not have it both ways.
Posted by BeaHappi on September 19, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
alice...see, even if we don't agree politically, we can still get along. Isn't bipartisanship great?
My hope for whoever is elected is that they can make great strides in once again uniting our wonderful country. And regardless of your views about abortion, religion, global warming, etc. let's all try to be a bit nicer to each other.
Many people are attending funerals for their friends & family who died in the Metrolink crash. Some of my family members are attending a funeral today for a wonderful woman who died all too soon considering the good that she did in the world.
In our world, a little kindness, tolerance, and compassion can go a long way.
Posted by madmax on September 19, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are too many children running around these days.
Posted by cassandra2 on September 19, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Alice, it's cool.
I've been delving lately into Central American history during the 80s and been overwhelmed by the courage of the clergy, mostly native, in the face of right wing oppression. So I was primed to go off at the claim to Christianity by those I see as spiritual midgets--no offense to any midget intended.
Likewise I want it clear that I was referring to Palin not the good doctor who is following her conscience instead of what's convenient. I agreed with you that what was required was prior notification to patients not denial of the right to practice within the limits she chose. I would have noted my agreement in my post but I was busy writing it while you were posting yours.
My own mea culpa here. I'm too quick to erupt over what I see as flawed instead of praising what isn't. You had some good points.
Posted by BeaHappi on September 19, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I agreed with you that what was required was prior notification to patients not denial of the right to practice within the limits she chose."
I second that agreement...
Posted by ebrockway on September 19, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Point was made above that the Dr was flawed by not giving a referral if she were unable or unwilling to perform an abortion.
What if the referral she gave was to a crisis pregnancy center?
Just curious how that concept gets batted about.
Posted by cassandra2 on September 19, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that part of the feeling of being excluded comes from the prior institutionalizing of Christianity in schools, halls of government and so on. As this intermingling of church and state comes to an end, it probably feels like persecution.
It's long been my observation that when the privileged group loses any of their position, it feels like reverse discrimination to its members. What specific rights have been taken away from even the most extreme Christian sects? Only the right to marry girls at a very, very young age, as far as I can tell.
There is room for many kinds of beliefs, but when it comes to acts, sometimes there is conflict.
Posted by aliceblois on September 19, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BeaHappi-yes-yes-yes. This destructive partisanship is tearing our great country apart. I couldn't agree with you more. (Sorry--off topic again!)
Posted by ebrockway on September 19, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BeaHappi is notorious for their blatant attempts at getting along with people and discussing things civilly.
I'm reporting them
Posted by gramagracie on September 19, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The classical oath
A Nova translation of the Oath runs as follows:
I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepios and Hygeia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot
Posted by BeaHappi on September 19, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ebrockway...I can't help myself...I'll try to do better (or worse as the case may be!).
Posted by lawabider on September 19, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are a licensed OB/GYN and are engaged in a practice funded by insurance you must obey the laws of the State in which you are employed. If you are unwilling to perform specific tasks for spiritual beliefs, you are in the WRONG business PERIOD... Why should this discussion go any further? oh, yeah, the perpetual lack of common sense...
Posted by WittyUserName on September 19, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not sure if this was addressed yet. If a person belongs to a HMO group and the doctor or hospital will not perform a procedure due to a religious affiliation, the patient is allowed to go out of network and the insurance company covers the cost.
With that said, I believe doctors have the right to refuse as long as patients are notified upfront.
Posted by WittyUserName on September 19, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lawabider -
Some people go into medicine to save lives. They truly believe that abortions and the pills are morally wrong. I myself am pro-choice and I want my choice to be respected. That is why I try and respect pro-lifers as well. I don't think they're in the wrong business.
Posted by Comments on September 19, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Witty, Not all HMOs allow you to go out of network for the reasons you stated. And, even if they may ultimately agree to a procedure by an out of network dr, it could take months to get the approval. I was a member on and HMO once, and I hope to never be part of one again. My personal experience is that they fight tooth and nail for anything outside of network. And, the fight doesn't even begin until they've ignored the 1st ten requests!
Even though I personally feel it's reprehensible for a physician to refuse certain services (services that are part and parcel to the chosen specialty) I seriously doubt that any dr is going to be forced to perform an abortion if s/he does not want to do so. They might not be allowed to be part of certain insurance networks and that's fine and appropriate. There are plenty of drs who've gone to cash based businesses.
A woman earlier stated that she was a patient of this dr and then stated that abortions are indeed performed in the practice this woman is part of, it's just that she herself doesn't perform them. Hmmmm, seems like a very fuzzy line to me. The dr won't refer patients out to other providers (so that they can get reimbursed for legal procedures), but acknowledges that the practice she works for performs those services. Does she refuse all her portion of the proceeds for these services?
And, I asked a question earlier that went unanswered. We require our military personnel to perform many tasks, which I'm sure go against many personal beliefs and religious convictions. I know that a soldier can apply for conscientious objector status, but I don't know of any who have been granted that in our current war. I'm not being critical of our military here, or our service men and women. I respect them greatly and am grateful we have folks who are willing to protect our country. That said, we are asking these folks to kill. That alone goes against many religions. May a soldier request that s/he not have to kill because of their personal convictions? As of now we have an all volunteer military. This OB knowingly entered her profession. What's the difference?
Posted by calisurf on September 19, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"What specific rights have been taken away from even the most extreme Christian sects? Only the right to marry girls at a very, very young age, as far as I can tell."
Cassandra try not to turn this conversation into a question of what Christianity is when you clearly do not know anything about the principles of the religion itself. Whatever religion anyone is it should be respected, not judged. There are extremists in every religion and that use pieces of scriptures to validate their own twisted concepts.
Dr. Kim is in the right field. Have any of you ever gone to her? By the comments concerning her beliefs I will go with no. She's a doctor, she brings life into this world, thats why she became a doctor. If she chooses to not be apart of taking a life out of this world it should be as respected as the mother who chooses that she cannot have the child in the first place. She does not give out referrals because there are 4 other doctors in her office that will due the procedure. If you went to her office you would know this is common knowledge among her patients. She goes above and beyond day and night what most people in her practice do.
Posted by Comments on September 19, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again someone commented that other drs in her office perform abortions. I hope that Dr Kim is not accepting any of the monies from the procedures, but I somehow doubt that.
Posted by WittyUserName on September 19, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
comments -
If it is a benefit on your plan, they have to per the Dept of Managed Health Care. Now abortion and contraception may not be a benefit and if that is the case, then there is no benefit. But you're right, many people do not know how to walk the maze of the red tape and are therefore lost in it.
It's a really deep subject to explore but I would think that one difference is that we all have a choice not to go to a doctor that refuses. This may or may not affect their practice and there is a chance, albeit slight, that they will go out of business. If a soldier refuses to do their job based on their moral convictions, he or she will probably be court-martialed. Obviously two very different outcomes which some of us see as unfair. But both professions are voluntary.
Posted by calisurf on September 19, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps you are just cynical and thats why you have doubts about her not accepting the money for the procedure. I love how people are going after someone's personal beliefs when it clearly has no effect on them what so ever.
And further more I 100 percent respect every person in the military because they are the sole reason we can choose and practice whatever belief system we want! That was the original foundation of this country or at least I thought.
Posted by Comments on September 19, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you equally respect a military member's right not to kill based upon personal convictions? If not then you're pretty hypocritical.
And yes, I can indeed be cynical at times. If's she not accepting the money from these procedures - swell. I really do doubt that though. I have some sense of how medical practices work and how the billing gets done. I suspect all the monies go into the same general pot and that she's sharing in the profits from the procedures. Cynical? Yep. But, I bet also true.
Posted by calisurf on September 19, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes i do acutally respect their right to not kill. I do not ask them to do it against their will the goverment does. It is extremely unfair that they are pressured to do things against their will at the cost of their jobs. I have 3 family members who are in the military that will never be the same. They are all 3 Christians, they do not believe in killing, but however they do love their country and respect the level of authority over them. They did what was asked of them. Comments not everything is so black and white. There is a level of responsibility vs. convictions in everyone its just how serious you take it that matters. However if you want the goverment to start telling physicians that they must forgo their beliefs and perform acts they do not beleive then you are asking to open a doorway for the goverment to start dictating your own life standards. If we do not have them freedom of our own discretion then tell me what country are we living in?
Posted by christafrankmiller on September 19, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well said cali surf...thank you
Posted by mamaof2 on September 19, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yes very well said calisurf
Posted by cassandra2 on September 19, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Calisurf, are you telling me that what I learned in Congregationalist, Methodist, Presbyterian et al Sunday school as a kid was not legitimate? I am sorry to hear that as it was inspiring and has probably at some level influenced my politics.
Do we play, will the real Christians please stand up and they all do, Gallileo along with the Inquisition, Boethius along with those who condemned him, Erasmus of Rotterdam along with Henry VIII who defended the faith, until it was inconvenient? I don't think so.
Each religion has its higher aspect, where we struggle against the tribal and narrow. I would pick Archbishop Romero as the truer Christian over the knee jerk anti-communist pope who sealed his doom any day of the week, including Sunday. It is your knowledge, I think, that lacks breadth and depth.
It is as true of other faiths as well.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on September 19, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So we can all agree that the only time this conflict of interest really becomes an issue is in small towns where there is only one doctor. So in this scenario the one doctor should either be forced to perform procedures that he/she feels are unethical, or stop practicing medicine.
I figure half of the doctors in these small towns decide to keep working, and the other half quit their practice. Now we have a situation where there are NO medical professionals available for any sort of procedure in half the small towns throughout America. Great, what a wonderful country this will turn out to be when that happens! And I thought our healthcare industry was bad now.
Posted by Twslv05 on September 19, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are Doctors of many specialties that won't perform or provide certain prescriptions or procedures that they consider to be harmful or immoral so why is that such a problem?
Some examples such as, circumcision or abortion or gender alteration and many many other procedures is not against this or any Doctors Hippocratic oath (unless there is a matter of life or limb involved of course)should a Doctor reject these procedures.
It amazes me to read some unbelievable remarks from those with pro-abortion anti-Christian stances do so claiming constitutional rights but want to force Doctors certain fields to their surrender their religious rights especially if they are of the Christian Faith.
The hot button as I read through other posts is the fact that Dr.Kim is a Born Again Christian not her refusal to perform certain controversial procedures and to me is a violation her First Amendment right and should be the focal point of this article not ones right to get an abortion.
Posted by sparks240 on September 19, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is my money, in the form of insurance premiums, being used to fund fertility treat ments and abortions? I don't have any problem with those procedures, but I shouldn't have to help pay for them. All elective procedures should not be covered by insurance.
Posted by Comments on September 19, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sparks, some abortions are medically necessary and not elective. No insurance I've had has ever covered elective abortions as far as I'm aware. And if they do it's likely because an abortion is far cheaper than funding a full 9 month pregnancy and then health care for the child. Would you rather your premiums go toward the full whack? Not a good argument.
And, sadly most insurance plans do not cover infertility treatment. I know this first hand as my son was conceived via IVF. My son is worth every penny we paid for him (and then some!) so I have let it go. However, you might imagine how frosted my butt was when I found out that my insurance covered vasectomy reversal but not any sort of infertility treatment (IF). Some IF treatments (i.e. clomid) are really relatively inexpensive.
How would you like a member of the same insurance company you're a part of to analyze all medical treatments you receive? Was that xray really necessary? Who says you needed to see the dr AGAIN? Sorry, you don't have a say in the personal medical/health decisions citizens make. If you don't like your health care plan and feel they pay for things you disapprove of then get another plan.
I have auto insurance and have never made a personal claim against my own insurance (I'm middle aged). Yet the premiums are high enough. Yep, I'm likely paying for all the boneheaded drivers out there. Same goes for my homeowners insurance. I've never made a claim, yet we pay an exorbitant fee. Should I have the right then to say what sort of repairs other folks with the same carrier make? Silly.
Posted by pearl12 on September 20, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been a patient of Dr. Kim for many years and, although I am not of her religious belief, feel she has the right not to perform certain "non life saving" procedures. I am aware that there are other doctors in the office who will. She is a good, competant and thorough physician. She takes the time to listen to me and I believe she truly cares about the well being of her patients.
Just before performing a surgical procedure on me she asked if I would like her to say a prayer for me. Although I don't share her religious persuasion and don't believe in prayer I said yes. I felt that anything she did to instill herself with the confidence to successfully treat me was just fine with me. And I appreciated that she asked my permission first. She didn't ask me to join in the prayer and she has never preached to me about anything other than good health and good choices for my body.
Quite honestly I have had more than my fill of physician's who so believe they are God themselves that they are unwilling to admit their mistakes. Or unwilling to accept that I might know something about my own body that they don't. Or are so morally vapid that losing a patient due to neglect only matters if it affects their liability premium.
Posted by mtlm on September 20, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BeaHappi-
Regarding your comment ... "As physicians, my opinion is that the Hippocratic Oath should come before personal beliefs when treating patients."
Usually I agree with your posts, but try viewing the situation from the doctor's perspective. The Hippocratic Oath is exactly the reason why many doctors refuse to perform abortions. It says "do no harm" and for those who believe elective abortions or after-the-fact treatments are equal to murder, their refusal is right in line with their oath.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on September 21, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
christafrankmiller ,I completely agree with you!
tweetybyrdrt , I agree!
keepermel ,Very well put!
Abortion- abortion is not an end of a pregnancy , its a DEAD BABY!........ my belief.
We all have the right to believe in our own religion or beliefs, I feel this Doctor is doing the right thing, God Bless her! Also when I took a VOW before GOD when I married until DEATH due us part. I take it very serious. AND I would not marry again. Unless my spouse passed. We all have different beliefs.
I have mixed feelings about giving an abortion to a baby that is proven not to have a brain and die after delivery. I have mixed feelings about abortion if its going to kill the Mother to give birth. But just to go out and have one because someone didn't use protection then NO.........
Posted by nelsonknows on September 21, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What ever happened to the Hippocratic of "first do no harm"? The Hippocratic oath has become the "Hypocritic" oath. What's next? requiring doctors to denounce their religion and holding a gun to their heads to force them to murder unborn children?
I called my Doctor before commenting here and he says that doctors are no longer required to take the Hippocratic oath, that's a shame.
Posted by freethought on September 21, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I agree that McCain was seeking a woman to fill the VP slot. What is so bad about that? It is obviously not the only reason she was selected--she is a very successful governor."
aliceblois - Yes, it was the only reason she was selected. Her record as a governor is too short to tell if she would've been successful. With all the heat that came with Palin, the only thing on John McCain's mind when he named her was, "She's not only a woman, she's a hot mom," hoping to bring in the female vote (obviously, it worked on you), the h0rny male vote, and the right wing vote (based on her super-conservative stance on many issues). Her selection was a slap in the face to dozens of much more qualified republican candidates. Even Lisa Murkowski, A U.S. senator from Palin's very own homefront, Alaska, is better qualified. She's also aging quite well. However, Palin is hotter and younger, and that's the bottom line - the basic truth behind her being selected.
Posted by freethought on September 21, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On the issue at hand, I think that the physician should be allowed to make a choice as to whether or not perform a requested abortion, except in the case where either the embryo/fetus will most likely develop horrible physical or mental handicaps, or the mother's life will be jeopardized by attempting to carry the child to term. In other words, the physician should not be afforded a choice in a life-threatening situation that requires an abortion to rectify.
By doing this, pregnant women will simply avoid hospitals who employ physicians with a "no abortion policy" which will, in turn, hit the hospital where it hurts most - it's quarterly profit reports. Given enough time, hospitals will send these doctors packing to practice their version of morality elsewhere.
Posted by srcheek on September 21, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If your faith bothers you so much, then become a priest, not a doctor. I have a very good friend who lives in a small town in Tennessee and her doctor wouldn't prescribe birth control because it was against his faith. She had to drive to a doctor two hours away and not covered by her insurance to get it. What part of being a doctor are these people not understanding?
Posted by freethought on September 21, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
srcheek - You bring up a good point. Although I don't oppose to a physician choosing not to perform an abortion that is not considered required due to life threatening situations, I do believe that withholding birth control should never be allowed. We're not talking about destroying a developing life, we're talking about preventing an unwanted pregnancy altogether. That's yet another issue I and Palin disagree on.
Posted by cakim on September 21, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My name is Catherine A. Kim, MD and I have been practicing in Simi Valley for the past 4 years. I am a Family Practictioner at the Sierra Vista Family Medical Clinic, one of the satellite clinics of the Ventura County Medical Center. Since I also do prenatal care and gynecology as part of my practice, I am often confused with the Catherine C. Kim, whom you highlighted in your article.
I would appreciate if you would publish a clarification in your newspaper, since I do not want my practice style to be misrepresented.
Sincerely,
Catherine A. Kim, MD
4531 Alamo Street
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Posted by freethought on September 21, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dr. Kim, you should contact the author, Tom Kisken, directly. You can contact him through this link: http://www.venturacountystar.com/staf... (also posted at the top of the article).
Posted by live_for_purpose on September 22, 2008 at 5:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People like Guadalupe Benitez will be the ruin of our society. We are not talking about a situation where there has been a car crash and a doctor says, "I won't treat that patient because she is a homosexual." Nor are we talking about a situation where a woman has cervical cancer and needs to have it removed ASAP and the doctor says, "I won't try to save your life because you are a homosexual."
We are talking about a non-emergency, non-urgent voluntary medical procedure(artificially inseminating a homosexual woman) that would potentially bring a child into the world that would not be in the home of a loving father and mother.
A doctor has a right to perform a procedure or not. There have been doctors we have checked into seeing with our children and could not see because they were not accepting new patients. That is the doctors choice to turn down business for whatever reason. Sometimes a doctor turns you down because he thinks you are not a candidate for a particular procedure. That is his choice. Then you get another referral.
There are many physicians to pick from. Don't expect to pick one and then force them to violate their long-held ethics.
Posted by live_for_purpose on September 22, 2008 at 5:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
christafrankmiller--good comment!
Posted by live_for_purpose on September 22, 2008 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lawabider--You don't like to give people freedom of conscience, do you?
Comments--Remember a doctor is usually not an employee--they are individual practitioners. And if they are an employee, they still have a conscience!
Aliceblois--nice comments even though somewhat off topic. Yes, it's true, the people who preach "tolerance" are usually the most intolerant of all. And it is funny when the governor of a small state (Arkansas) is deemed qualified to be President when he is a man who demeans women, but the governor of another small state (Alaska) is not qualified to be even the Vice President when she is a woman.
The Democrats pretty much hate anyone who is a conservative and/or a Christian. Hillary couldn't get the nomination because she was not as liberal as Barack. And the media didn't fawn all over her.
Posted by freethought on September 22, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
live_for_purpose - What hate and lies you spew. You talk of "freedom of conscience" as if the conscience is always right. The Christian Crusades were based on the Christian conscience of the time, and hundreds of thousands of non-Christians were murdered as a result. Hitler was following his conscience when he orchestrated the murder of millions. He really thought he was acting in the best interest of both the people of Germany and God. Muslim extremists and other terrorists are also acting on their conscience when they kill innocent men, women and children. They believe their actions to be the best path to obtain their "righteous" goals. All three examples were dead wrong. The point here is that the conscience is never a justification for making a horrible decision or the best menas of determining what's right or wrong. Common sense works better. Unfortunately, most right wing Christian types don't have any.
On the comment that those who preach tolerance are intolerant, you are again wrong. Show me one example otherwise. I can name plenty who preach intolerance and who are, of course, intolerant. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, GW Bush, David Duke, and Sarah Palin are just a few.
On the comment of Democrats hating Chritians - ?????? Every Presidential candidate in both the Democratic and Republican parties over the last century were Christians. So were their VP candidates (with one notable Jewish exception). Are you saying they were self-hating? That comment makes no sense.
In talking of intolerance, you have shown us all how intolerant YOU actually are. Is that a Christian trait? I hope not.
Posted by freethought on September 22, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Christians" not "Chritians" - Sorry.
Posted by venturapagan on September 22, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First, when I fill out the patient info sheet at a clinic the first time I go there, one of the questions is what religion you are; I don't see any signs or other religiously identifying info on the doctors and nurses posted anywhere in their offices. Second,while I have never been refused service because of the doctor's convictions, I do have a problem with those who see "Wiccan" on my records and think it's a green light to Bible-thump (A. Swaney at CMH clinic). Totally inappropriate. They're only there to provide the services for which they are trained, not to pass any judgement or decide to "save" a patient from committing what they see as a sin....
Posted by joanna on September 22, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This so called doctor should have her license taken away.
It is not her right to deny medical care to someone just because she doesn't agree with it.
She thinks we are all born in Gods image; so what if someone came to her with a growth on their nose would she say she can't remove it because it has been put there by God! If she sticks to these ideas she shouldn't treat anyone for anything - after all it would be the will of God if you die in childbirth and not her business to mess with it!
I am an atheist and believe in a womans right to choose - if this so called doctor persists in this line of thinking she should only take patients that pay cash - I don't want any of my tax dollars or insurance payments going into her pocket!
Posted by live_for_purpose on September 23, 2008 at 1:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice job, freethought. By playing the "Hitler card" you have compared the murder of 6 million Jews (and others) to not helping a homosexual woman have a baby.
For you to say that killing 6 million people is as bad as refusing to attempt to engineer a baby for a homosexual woman is about as absurd as it gets. I've never heard something so anti-Semitic in my life. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologize to all Jewish people and all rational people as well.
Posted by freethought on September 23, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
live_for_purpose - I'm not the one who boiled the atrocities committed by that horrible man down to "the Hitler card". That was you. How completely insensitive can you get? My comparison was on using conscience as a guide to show it as a failed measure in so many cases. I named extreme cases because people are familiar with them. I also named them to indicate how intolerant people, like yourself, use their "consciences" to further force their ideology on others for the purpose of control. However, it won't work. Never has in the past, and it never will.
Besides, the only people who are truly anti-semetic profess to be part of one of two religions - Christianity or Muslim (extremists within these religions in both cases). I am neither. I'm guessing you belong to one of them. I'd return the "you should be ashamed of yourself" comment, but you apparently have no shame.
Posted by freethought on September 23, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
anti-Semitic, not anti-semetic - do the anti-Semites need an official apology for my misspelled word?
(ahem, lfp, ahem)
If so, just let me know.
Posted by freethought on September 23, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lfp - This is where you say, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 95 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.