What must a doctor provide?


If a doctor decides that they will not perform certain procedures, how can that be compared to any form discrimination? The doctor in is no way excluding groups of people from offered services. In the case of doctors who do not want to perform abortion, they do not exclude any woman from services that the doctor does offer.

The real question is, do doctors have a right to choose what types of services they offer? All other professions, that I can think of right now, can choose what services they offer within their sphere. Lawyers, for example, can choose what types of cases they will take. What is the trouble with doctors?


Doctors do specify what they do. In an optimal situation, a cardiologist (heart doctor) would not treat a broken arm (Something for a orthopedic specialist to do)


Why do you think that there is “trouble” with doctors?

A medical doctor in the US can refuse to perform abortions, sterilizations, or euthanasia.


I think what the OP meant is what is different in medicine as opposed to law that prevents doctors from specializing. I addressed specialization in my post.


Some issues to consider:
Should a doctor refuse to provide all the “difficult” services and just provide “easy” services?
Eg I just want to see coughs and colds but not drug abuse counselling or mental health issues.
What about where a doctor is in an area where alternative doctor is not readily available?


well, coughs and colds are usually taken care of by a general practitioner, and drug addiction/mental health is usually taken care of by a rehab specialist/ psychologist… So, unless a doctor wanted to triple his medical school tuition and time spent at university, that is not really realistic

to your second point, I honestly dont know.

However, most disciplines at medical school are not “easy”. For a doctor to have only certain procedures he performs would be strange, and probably bad for his practice.


I can’t see any reason why a doctor couldn’t choose to treat cold and flu exclusively if a living can be made doing it. Seems like a personal choice.


My understanding is the only real restriction is someone in the business of providing emergency services, must either provide them or arrange for someone else to do so. People in need of urgent care to prevent death or impairment have a right to receive it. So for example, a Jehovah’s Witness could likely not work as an ER doctor, as refusing to provide a transfusion would be a problem.


The trouble isn’t with doctors.
The trouble is from certain laws and regulatory agencies who want to force a certain reproductive agenda on the health care profession.


In a free world, doctors can choose who to and who not to treat, what to treat, and how to treat. But we don’t live in a free world. And progressive “hatriots” will always have it that way if they can.


Yes and in this free world we’d have people that will put up a sign calling themselves a doctor when they have no qualifications. No worries though, the market will flush those cons out of the system! We have the poor and uneducated as guinea pigs for the aristocracy. It’ll be great!

Until the proletariats rise up, again, demanding protections from the government so they have reasonable assurances that they are seeing a doctor with, at least, a medical degree.

I appreciate Libertarians who push back against the knee jerk reaction of legislation; however, it is rude and ignornant to call people names because they think regulation serves a vital protective function.

Prove to me your version of “freedom” would work better when history is riddled with the opposite. Or, you know, name call and carry your mantle of self-righteousness around instead. That’s productive, too.


You’re getting off topic. I never said a thing about licenses or degrees. I never said a thing about people putting up signs. Those are your words, not mine.


Once you allow government to decide any part of the agenda, you have tacitly accepted that government has power over the entire agenda.


Doctors can choose what services they offer based on their level of skill and ability. However, within the ambit of their particular specialization, they are expected to be fully competent, meaning that they can perform all procedures expected of a physician in the specialization. If they choose not to provide a service for moral reasons, they are ethically required to provide an effective referral to another practitioner.


Let me just point out that “ethics” is not the same as “morality”.

Ethics is decided by the people in power in a profession, and basically says that "we think the profession should embrace such-and-such values and its practitioners must do such-and -such actions in the course of their job"
Ethics are changeable.

Morality is based in the truth that some actions damage our relationship with God and other people, and other actions affirm those relationships.
Morality is unchangeable, and covers everybody in the whole world.

Peace :v:


That’s why I used the word ethics to talk about the professional obligation and moral to talk about the personal objection.


I hear ya–
In everyday language, people tend to conflate the two terms, so that’s why I provided the definitions :slightly_smiling_face:


You are getting off topic with your comment about doctors choosing whom to treat. The topic of this thread is what kind of treatment they must perform.


Not really. The OP mentioned groups of people and women. There was nothing said about signs or licenses or degrees.


For now.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.