This is sort of a post to the people who know me IRL. Please don't let it distract you from the much more substantive one below.
But.
I really hope I'm not.
And no, for those of you who are wondering, I didn't have an abortion in the film.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
sorry for the off-topic comment. on 2/7/2007, the new england journal of medicine released this report in their newsletter:
Religion, Conscience, and Controversial Clinical Practices
Farr A. Curlin, M.D., Ryan E. Lawrence, M.Div., Marshall H. Chin, M.D., M.P.H., and John D. Lantos, M.D.
Background
There is a heated debate about whether health professionals may refuse to provide treatments to which they object on moral grounds. It is important to understand how
physicians think about their ethical rights and obligations when such conflicts emerge in clinical practice.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a stratified, random sample of 2000 practicing U.S. physicians from all specialties by mail. The primary criterion variables were physicians’ judgments about their ethical rights and obligations when patients request a legal medical procedure to which the physician objects for religious or moral reasons. These procedures included administering terminal sedation in dying patients, providing abortion for failed contraception, and prescribing birth control to adolescents without parental approval.
Results
A total of 1144 of 1820 physicians (63%) responded to our survey. On the basis of our results, we estimate that most physicians believe that it is ethically permissible for doctors to explain their moral objections to patients (63%). Most also believe that
physicians are obligated to present all options (86%) and to refer the patient to another clinician who does not object to the requested procedure (71%). Physicians who were male, those who were religious, and those who had personal objections to morally controversial clinical practices were less likely to report that doctors must disclose information about or refer patients for medical procedures to which the physician objected on moral grounds (multivariate odds ratios, 0.3 to 0.5).
Conclusions
Many physicians do not consider themselves obligated to disclose information about or refer patients for legal but morally controversial medical procedures. Patients who want information about and access to such procedures may need to inquire proactively to determine whether their physicians would accommodate such requests.
N Engl J Med 2007;356:593-600.
Copyright © 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
From the Department of Medicine (F.A.C., M.H.C.), the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics (F.A.C., M.H.C., J.D.L.), the
Pritzker School of Medicine (R.E.L.), and the Department of Pediatrics (J.D.L.), University
of Chicago, Chicago.
wow. I don't blame you. sounds like an worthy film though; will be on the lookout.
chacal - thank you so much for posting this. very interesting, not entirely surprising, and utterly depressing!
Post a Comment