Are personal faith and medical care compatiable?

[Ridryder 911]

First let's clarify the issue... the Pharmacist was fired because they did not want to dispense the "morning after pill". A non-emergency medication. The state law, allowed them to refuse to participate in manners that they found unethical, or conflict in religious beliefs.. they were discharged because the left wing governor made a hissy about it to Walgreen's.. It was not like there was not other pharmacies, or even another pharmacist to do such.. the law suit, is that the pharmacist was following the law.

Sorry, I have been in situations that went against my belief and moral stance... and YES, I refused to participate and will continue to do so. The same is true for catholic associated hospitals not performing abortions, or prescriptions on birth control pills.. they patients have a choice, seek another facility.

I worked at a hospital that had a Jehovah Witness that worked in lab ( I know an oxymoron, but it is true) she would not dispense blood, so a house supervisor had to be called, to do it. Irritating at times, but when ever we start taking ones right of freedom of religion and faith, we need to start worrying as well. Should each institution be restricted to practice "secular medicine, only"? It should be the right of each institution to make those decisions as long as they patient is aware of it. This is not to say withhold or perform emergency care.. which I have not seen or heard of.

FYI: It has been scientifically proven those with faith, and prayer has a better chance of outcome and less days in the hospital. Spirituality is a special concern for several patients and staff as well, and should not be ignored.

Be safe,

R/R 911

[pmedic623]

Good post Rid -I'm confused as to why we are talking about the morning after pill which is not part of emergency medicine nor will any of us have to dispense it. I thought this was about emergency medical problems and religious beliefs. The morning after pill is a whole different issue for me.......

[akflightmedic]

Please read the original article in the first post. Yes this started because of the morning after pill, however the fall out from this debacle has led to blanket provisions for all health care workers. That is where I made the correlation to EMS providers and possible treamtent modalities we may or may not do.

[medik8]

I have to say that I completely agree with AK here :wink: I would have done the same exact thing with the baby. If that is what brought that mother comfort in her difficult time, then so be it. Something that simple could have made all the difference in her having or not having difficulty accepting her baby's death. It's all about my patient in these situations. I may not share their beliefs, but I will put aside my own to do the job that I so love to do...and that is making people feel better, whatever that may take.

I am not part of any "organized" religion, but I do have beliefs of my own. I am a good person, and I care. Just because I don't go to church on Sundays, doesn't make me heartless. I cannot count the number of times that scared patients have asked me to pray with them. Patients who knew they were going to die...and in some cases because I knew also, and was honest with them and they obviously could see it in my eyes. I will put my whole heart into making that dying person feel some sort of comfort before their last breath. In many cases, I didn't share their religion or their beliefs. But, I choose to do whatever it takes to bring comfort to my patient. I have been asked to hold hands, recite the Lord's Prayer, to say a prayer for their family left behind to find strength and comfort during the loss they are about to go through, or just a prayer so that they are not scared and "praying" as they die. I've hugged family members, and I've had sobbing wives and mothers put their heads in my lap and hold on for dear life. Whatever works. I'm not the best at praying, not being an active part of church. But I've found, it doesn't take much. When patients are in that situation, a few words and they look at you like you are an angel.

I've had someone cry and profusely thank me for being "their angel" before the last breath was drawn. I took that one home with me...and think about it more than I care to. But, I'm honored to have been a part of that delicate time in that person's life. Sometimes we are all they have. I always ask myself this...if my child, husband, boyfriend, mother, etc...loved one, were dying, and I couldn't be there with them...what would I wish for? Would I wish the only person with them be tight lipped and closed minded and "sterile"...or would I find comfort in finding out that that stranger held my loved one's hand, and honored their simple wishes and that they died in peace. I'll go for the latter. It's a decision, and a choice...and I certainly won't be judgemental of anyone here for their beliefs...but I ask that you try to understand mine.

Mutual respect...that's all... :wink:

xoxoxoxo.... 8

[vs-eh?]

Everyone one agrees that there is a difference in this issue regarding emergent and non-emergent problems. At the very least, even if your religious convictions prevent you from participating in a procedure, I'm sure (in hospital say) there are others that may not share in that belief and will do/assist with it. That is fine, and I have no issue with that as long as there are others around that will assist in the procedure you may be against. Since the article discusses blanket application of this and this is an EMS forum, let's apply it to pre-hospital emergency medicine.

If this were to apply to EMS then your employer (I would think) have to ask your religion/belief system and if it would absolutely prevent you from doing any emergent procedure or treating a "type of patient". I said "type" of patient because if you notice they mention the possibility of homosexuals in their too :roll: . LOLOLOLOL, utterly ridiculous. Don't plan on working in my city if you are against treating homosexuals, huge population and ummmm we have gay marriage :shock: . Why don't you just put racial groups in there too?

The employer then would likely have to have a questionnaire outlining various general and specific scenarios that you would refuse to do because of your beliefs. This would probably be a pretty big document. The employer would then have to ensure that no EMT/Paramedic can be working on an ambulance together who have any sort of overlapping belief refusal of treatment issues. What if 2 people (who may not even know each other or their beliefs) get a call in an emergent situation where they would refuse and said on the question? Now what? They either refuse tx based on their convictions and call another ambulance (and in the end would be covered), or they suck it up and do it for the good of the patient (just like AK did for that patient). Now what if the patient dies or gets worse because of this refusal? Lawyers, lawsuits, mass hysteria, cats and dogs living together (Ghostbusters reference....). Again, starts to potentially be more trouble than its worth in an emergent situation.

And the whole find a new doctor, find a new pharmacy?

I would think (and correct me if I'm wrong), but in smaller towns and less populated areas wouldn't this be more of a problem? Emergent or not? What of you live in a small town and all the pharmacist's or docs may refuse to do a certain procedure or give out certain meds? You can't simply wait for Bill to go home and for Phil to be working to get your morning after pill. Now what? Drive to another town? Move? IT IS YOUR JOB!!! You can believe whatever you want, but if it starts interfering with aspects that may regularly present themselves and there are no other persons readily or reasonably available that WILL do it, then maybe it is time to move on.

That being said I hope there is a clause that states you cannot be turned upon by a fellow employee by doing or not doing a certain procedure or whatever. But I'm sure it will happen...

Does anyone else see how this could apply to a near infinite realm of scenarios? Cross your arms and say you won't do that because it is against your belief system and be covered?

And to whoever said that being in EMS is doing "God's" work. Sorry, I don't believe that...

[vs-eh?]

Sorry, but I have to comment again...

The whole mention of the possible application to homosexual patients just really set the tone for this article and if you don't think there is something wrong with that then I dunno what to say.

I am going to assume that not all homosexuals act "gay", drape themselves in a rainbow flag, shout "We're hear, we're queer, get used to it", or are kissing their partner 24/7.

You refuse to treat homosexuals...

Scenerio -

You are called for a 30 year old male, abdo pain. This is readily apparent that this is not an emergency, as the details say he has hx of the same. It is also noted on the update that the patient is HIV+. You get there and the patient is acting "gay". Do you then infer that HIV+ young male and acting "gay" equals homosexual? Do you then tell the patient sorry we are not going to continue assessment, not transport you...we are calling another ambulance if you want to go via ambulance. Do you go with what you think? Do you ask if they are homosexual? In the end it really doesn't matter...

This is a non-emergent call, but the patient wants to go via ambulance. You and your partner are homophobes...and because of this bill you are covered. Do you simply tell the patient..."Sorry, I don't believe in homosexuality, I refuse to further assess and transport you." Do you?

If you agree with this scenario, "protected" or not, I suggest you re-read what our friend said...

If your religious beliefs conflict with your job, find a new one.

[winyan]

Faith should be a private thing, and people who put such beliefs above helping others

DO NOT BELONG IN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!!

win

[Punisher]

Faith should be a private thing, and people who put such beliefs above helping others

DO NOT BELONG IN THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!!

win

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[vs-eh?]

Wow...Way too much to say about this...

For the pharmacist issue...

Did they work for a pharmacy before this legislation was enacted?

Did they dispense the morning after, or any other pill that they now refuse too simply because it was their job?

Now that they are "covered" they refuse to dispense it, even when potentially before they just did because they weren't and may loose their job?

Did the company ask the person (regardless if the legislation was made before or after they were hired) if it may affect certain medication distribution?

Are people simply retroactively covered?

You can see how this may apply to EMS...

Medic on the job for 10 years. Deeply religious and has been "sucking it up" on certain aspects of the job that he/she would normally be wholly against. Why? Because it will likely cost them their job or cause "issues". Now this legislation is passed and they now refuse to do these things because it is "legal". Since this may or may not interfere with certain aspects of an inherently unpredictable job, they are offered an alternative "non-street" position where these situation can be avoided if necessary. The paramedic says no, and now feels they are being discriminated because of his/her beliefs...

Sound silly? A dumb "what if" scenario? I don't think it is...

And is it "generally accepted" religions or belief systems? Who is to say that? As someone said it is a personal thing. I can believe whatever I want. Now this issue I can bring up, saying I can finally legally not do this because it has been paining me inside because of my belief? Now you may be "covered" on, retroactively or otherwise...

Too many issues...

Unless there is another person reasonably or readily available to do the same job at the same level of training, education whatever, this will cause nothing but problems.

[rat115]

You can see how this may apply to EMS...

Medic on the job for 10 years. Deeply religious and has been "sucking it up" on certain aspects of the job that he/she would normally be wholly against. Why? Because it will likely cost them their job or cause "issues". Now this legislation is passed and they now refuse to do these things because it is "legal". Since this may or may not interfere with certain aspects of an inherently unpredictable job, they are offered an alternative "non-street" position where these situation can be avoided if necessary. The paramedic says no, and now feels they are being discriminated because of his/her beliefs...

As a christian who joined the Catholic church as an adult, I've always been taught that God wants us to help those in need. It doesn't matter who they are, what they've done, or how their beliefs differ from mine. I've been given the gift to help others and I'm NOT doing the work God wanted me to do if I refuse treatment to someone. There is no issue of discrimination in that. If someone feels, especially in this field, that they can not treat others without being discriminating about that person, be they atheist, muslim, christian or any other faith, they are in the WRONG field. That's my $0.02 on the subject.