Welcome to Gaia! ::

uh id like to see some evidance on that#1 many women get pregnant from rape #2 i am married and though my husband and i use birth contrlo i have been preganant and i have 2 beutiaful children i also have cancer in my uteris and have been tolsd by my doctor that if i become pregnant i will only lose the child, sadly i thought maybe the doc was wrong, and i have lost a child, so is it right for say a person in my situation to not be able to get the morning after pill and having to know that i may have i child that is growing inside of me and i will have to deal with the fact it is going to die no matter what i do, is that really fair, as far as the gay and lezbian thing actully it might not be special treatment , i've met homosexual men who could not get aroused by a women how could they consive a child with a women

I always though it was against the law for doctors to refuse help to anyone... and thats just dumb anyway.

in my opinion, when someone enters a gay relationship they chose not to have children. its as simple as that. men arent meant to have children together hence why men do not have wombs. its a no brainer really.

There is always an option instead of making them, to adopt them. A loving couple is always a good thing when adopting i see no issue in that.

Creating children is an entirely different proposition than caring for them, which men are absolutely qualified to do.

Wow, okay, let's be a little careful with our language, shall we? Calling Somalia and "evil" place is not only unnecessary, but impolite, inaccurate, and offensive.

I see what you're getting at, and I applaud you for doing it in a tactful manner.

Like doctors having the right to refuse service, patients have the right to refuse treatment. The only exception, of course, is if the patient is in critical condition and their views on treatment are unknown. If you bring a person on the brink of death to a hospital, they will be treated until they are better or until they die.

The difference is that by taking their oath and choosing their profession, doctorsare assumed to be of the belief of helping whomever needs their help. In fact, unless they explicitly announce with a sign or when they see the patient that they will not (note not "can") treat certain conditions, patients have every right to assume otherwise. In fact, probably the reason doctors don't put this into practice is akin to shop owners not posting signs saying "We will not serve people of color," regardless of their beliefs, because it will lose them business and generate ire from those whom it affects. Most shops DO have, however, signs stating that the reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, generally done for the safety of their patrons and their staff.

Doctors, hospitals, and generally most pharmaceuticals, however, do not have this sign. This makes it both unethical and unfair to patients expecting to get treatment from them. Even with said sign, it is still generally expected that most will not employ it, as per the Hippocratic Oath.



Now, like with all things, many parts of it are open to interpretation. However, it would be much more fair for patients and much more ethical to state up front exactly how certain parts of the oath are to be interpreted by the medical professional. If one says that they will try to save the patients life by any means necessary, they should say so.

There is a great deal of grey area in the matter that could best be cleared up by the professionals themselves before hand, and on an individual basis.