[Anderson]

There is no evidence of this ever having occured; The Times have not produced any evidence to substanciate their claims and any BMA reports were based on conjecture not actual events.

Just because something is in a newspaper does not make it true; especially when said newspaper is owned by one Rupert Murdoch ala Fox News and The Sun.

Fosis have released a press statement- http://www.fosis.org.uk/media/archives_read.php?id=125

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Timbit

And where do you draw the line between refusing to fill a prescription for birth control pills and refusing to treat a patient with liver damage due to drinking too much?

Actually, there is a very clear line and it is already addressed by the medical community in some ways.

To whit: a person with alcoholic liver cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease will DIE without a liver transplant. Nevertheless, such patients are not and cannot be eligible for transplants unless and until they demonstrate that they have been completely sober for at least 6 months. We will let a cirrhotic die of liver failure before we transplant someone who is an active drinker. It is a practical choice in many ways, but I do feel there is an underlying moral decision being made there as well.

As to merely "treating" someone -- the difference between treating drug addicts and cirrhotics for the complications of their bad behaviours and "treating" pregnant women for the complications of their sexual behaviour is also quite clear. For those opposed to abortion, the latter involves taking the life of another person. That being the case, there remain worlds of difference in refusing abortions and refusing care to drug abusers.

[sally]

I wonder what kind of medical training students under the rule of the Taliban underwent. I'm thinking that since most medical students at the time would've been male anyway, that they would've had to have dealt with gynecological issues. Or maybe they didn't get training for that, who knows. But my point is that even in relatively 'strict' Muslim countries today, medical students have to and see all sorts of patients for experience purposes. True, it may be easier to excuse themselves out of it, but that would just end up reflecting badly on their experience.

[Anderson]

Like I've posted there's no evidence whatsoever that this happened.

[PhDGirl]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

i thought this was about doctors being picky about who they marry, since after all they are the top of the b.s. desi caste, that so many desi muslims still practice, you bunch of jahils!

LOL, I knew you'd be in here posting about this

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Actually, there is a very clear line and it is already addressed by the medical community in some ways.

To whit: a person with alcoholic liver cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease will DIE without a liver transplant. Nevertheless, such patients are not and cannot be eligible for transplants unless and until they demonstrate that they have been completely sober for at least 6 months. We will let a cirrhotic die of liver failure before we transplant someone who is an active drinker. It is a practical choice in many ways, but I do feel there is an underlying moral decision being made there as well.

As to merely "treating" someone -- the difference between treating drug addicts and cirrhotics for the complications of their bad behaviours and "treating" pregnant women for the complications of their sexual behaviour is also quite clear. For those opposed to abortion, the latter involves taking the life of another person. That being the case, there remain worlds of difference in refusing abortions and refusing care to drug abusers.

I never said anything about abortion. I was talking about birth control pills and emergency contraception. Obviously, you shouldn't have to perform an abortion if you're morally opposed to that.

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Timbit

I never said anything about abortion. I was talking about birth control pills and emergency contraception.

They are not separate issues -- people who refuse to give birth control are opposed to abortion and do not give birth control for the same reasons: because they think it is wrong to terminate pregnancies.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Originally Posted by PhDGirl

LOL, I knew you'd be in here posting about this

LOL....Yesss...sooner or later...lol

[Timbit]

Originally Posted by Khairan

They are not separate issues -- people who refuse to give birth control are opposed to abortion and do not give birth control for the same reasons: because they think it is wrong to terminate pregnancies.

They're not the same issue.
Birth control is preventing a pregnancy before it happens, not terminating one.

[Nazfreak]

Originally Posted by Khairan

They are not separate issues -- people who refuse to give birth control are opposed to abortion and do not give birth control for the same reasons: because they think it is wrong to terminate pregnancies.

Uh, say wha? I thought people refused to give birth control moreso because it promotes sexual promiscuity. How can it terminate a pregnancy if there's no fetus to kill in the first place?

But like Anderson is saying, this article is just incredibly sloppy journalism. You know they're trying to milk out as much fear as possible when they publish a 'he say she say' story without legitimate proof that this actually happened.

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Timbit

They're not the same issue.
Birth control is preventing a pregnancy before it happens, not terminating one.

I'm not disagreeing with you the facts as you are presenting them -- however, the fact remains that many in the religious right in America DO NOT see a difference. It was only recently that the Catholic Church finally removed its injunctions against the use of Plan B, and they objected PRECISELY because they saw it as a kind of abortion.

Remember, we are talking about people's moral objections here, not whether or not those objections are reasonable or justified. Insofar as that is the case, perceptions are paramount.