The obbligation of a doctor is to provide services which maintain and cure the human body?

and provide first aid whenever he can, while a pharmacy is obligated to hand out whatever a doctor says his patient needs. Everything beyond that, like plastic surgery, is not an immediate obligation of a doctor.
How do you feel about birth control ? Right now a doctor is only obligated to terminate a pregnancy if there are complications involved that might harm the mother and a pharmacist isnt any more obligated to sell morning after pills than he is to sell candy.
Should a doctor be obligated to perform an abortion on a rape victim that whishes one or should he be allowed to refuse rendering services to somone he diagnoesd as healthy forwarding the girl to a psychatrist to deal with her emotional trauma ? Right now random abortions are not a doctors job or obligation although he might be qualified for it, just like plastic surgery, piercings, tatoos, branding, should it become one ?

Juniper antibiotics go with the maintainance of the body. And yes it is up to the doctor to decide weather or not to give them, like with every other medicine. If the doctor refuses to take responsibility for giving you antibiotics you just have to accept it, the way you have to accept if he refuses to interrupt the natural process of a pregnancy if there is no immediate medical necessity to do so.

You wrote:
The obligation of a doctor is to provide services which maintain and cure the human body?
This is patently untrue and very poorly spelled, I might add.
A Dr. takes the Hippocratic oath which states :
1) First, do no harm.
He is or she is not God, and they do not have the right to impose their own morality on another.
Good luck

Cassius-
I just get soo many Best Answers from your questions...Thanks!
Good luck Report It

It is quite strange that you compare reproductive health services to elective procedures. When a doctor prescribes prophylactic antibiotics, the purpose is to prevent a medical situation from happening. Should a doctor wait until a person develops septic shock before treating the infection, or is it acceptable for him to help the person from getting it in the first place? Doctors use technology all the time to interefere in the "natural order" of things. The question is, should doctors be allowed to refuse to provide safe, proven medical treatments to his patients because he personally doesn't agree with them?

Do you believe that a Jehovah's Witness should be allowed to become a doctor and then refuse to do blood transplants? What if you were brought into the E.R., bleeding profusely, and the only doctor available at the time decided to exercise his right to refuse treatment to you based on his beliefs? What if he also believed in "letting God decide" and denied your ailing grandmother a round of preventative antibiotics, and she later died? Exactly WHAT technological advances are you against? Only the ones that concern women?

EDIT: Nope, antibiotics are used sometimes as a *preventative* measure. If it is the best course of action, and a doctor refuses to offer them, he can and should be sued. That's called *malpractice*. He is obligated to let his patients know about ALL medical treatments, preventative or otherwise, that are available to them. If a patient is having trouble with his heart, and a bypass surgery is the best option, you think a doctor should be able to keep his mouth shut? If it's not in his line of expertise, shouldn't he recommend another doctor? Isn't it unethical to just smugly "refuse" to treat him?

Currently, the American medical industry operates based on a free market economy ( it is regulated, however). While your first statement is true, a doctor is obligated to provide services which maintain and cure the human body, a physician in a free market economy who wishes to make more money will offer many elective services to his/her patients. In fact, there is currently a trend toward "medical day spas" providing cosmetic services such as microderm abrasion and other cosmetic procedures which require a MD to administer.

A doctor may refuse to do any procedure on any patient at any time. The patient is free to consult another doctor. That also is part of a free market economy.

Rape victims should receive referrals for psychological counseling regardless of what they decide to do about the physical consequences of the rape.

A physician who selectively refuses to perform abortions based on the circumstances of how the woman became pregnant is both unethical and unwise.

This is why the language of Roe v. Wade is so important...it keeps the patient in the decision process.

"Should a doctor be obligated to perform an abortion on a rape victim that whishes one"
No, they can simply go to another doctor. It's no big deal. They doctor should then continue to persist in his jop irrespective of any complaints made against him/her since he/she still has valuable skills which he/she uses every day to help people.

"a doctor is only obligated to terminate a pregnancy if there are complications involved that might harm the mother"
This is right, we must protect the mothers life. Her life is no less significant just because she is pregnant.

"pharmacist isnt any more obligated to sell morning after pills"
This is no big deal either, they can simply get it elsewhere. They should not be forced to breach their moral values. They are still providing a valued service to others.
Do you not need a doctor's aproval for emergency contraception over there? You do in my country. It must be discouraged as a primary form of contraception.

Edit:
Yeah, you're right, I removed the reference. My mistake. I was confusing it with 2 seperate things.

Doctors refuse to provide abortions all the time. That's what abortion clinics are for.

As long as there are enough doctors willing to perform them (enough to make it accessible to everyone who chooses to have them) than I have no problem with some doctors choosing to opt out. If it does get to a point where a woman is unable to obtain one because there is no doctor in the area willing to do so, then something should be done to rectify that situation. What, I'm not sure. Thank god for planned parenthood. However, I'm completely against pharmacists being allowed to deny someone plan b because of their own moral objections.

nobodys obligated to do anything--He can provide abortions............or not--just like i can get an abortion...........or not

one question at a time please. Maybe next time?