Medicine and conscience

Considering that the issue of ‘informed consent’ in medical procedures became the cutting edge of the pro-life movement, particularly in South Dakota law on the pro-life frontline, it’s interesting that academics and the media are getting a bit more interested in the subject.

A disturbing number of doctors do not feel obligated to tell patients about medical options they oppose morally, such as abortion and teen birth control, and believe they have no duty to refer people elsewhere for such treatments, researchers say.

The trouble with this reporting is, it has the situation backwards. In fact, a disturbing number of doctors and clinic workers do not feel obligated to tell patients about medical options those doctors or clinic workers oppose, and those pro-abortion workers believe they have no duty to refer people elsewhere. Say…a crisis pregnancy center.

Back to MSNBC.

The survey of 1,144 doctors around the country is the first major look at how physicians’ religious or moral beliefs might affect patients’ care.

The study, conducted by University of Chicago researchers, found 86 percent of those responding believe doctors are obligated to present all treatment options, and 71 percent believe they must refer patients to another doctor for treatments they oppose. Slightly more than half the rest said they had no such obligation; the others were undecided.

“That means that there are a lot of physicians out there who are not, in fact, doing the right thing,” said David Magnus, director of Stanford University’s Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Clearly. Look at those numbers — 86 percent of those respondents believe doctors are obligated to present all treatment options. That would comprise ‘informed consent.’ Nearly three quarters of them said the doctors must refer patients to other doctors for treatments if the patient wanted to go elsewhere based on the ‘informed consent.’

The survey did not examine whether these doctors act on their beliefs — that is, whether they actually withhold information or refuse to refer patients. But the researchers calculated that tens of millions of Americans might be going to such doctors.

Overall, 52 percent said they oppose abortion, 42 percent opposed prescribing birth control to 14- to 16-year-olds without parental approval, and 17 percent objected to sedating patients near death.

So, what are they trying to say in these findings, and the reporting on it? Some of it is nuanced, some clearer.

Dr. Jeffrey Ecker, chairman of the committee on ethics at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said he was encouraged that most doctors agreed patients deserve to be told about all appropriate medical options and referred to other doctors when needed.

“There is reason to be concerned about those that don’t do it,” Ecker said.

Well no kidding. That’s how the whole battle over informed consent at abortion clinics started in New Jersey and South Dakota.

Curlin noted prior research by his team found doctors may be a bit more religious than others — 46 percent of doctors said they attend religious services at least twice a month, compared with 40 percent of the general public. But he found doctors are less likely to carry their religious beliefs into their daily work, with 58 percent saying they do so, versus 73 percent of the general public.

This says nothing, essentially. There’s no information here.

Curlin said that in light of the new survey findings, if a patient “anticipates wanting a controversial treatment and they don’t know already if their physician opposes it, then they should ask.”

“I hope it leads to more substantive conversations between doctors and their patients,” he said.

Using that as a premise…what constitutes a ‘controversial treatment’? if a patient isn’t automatically given proper information for an informed consent, and the doctor is pro-abortion, there is no chance that doctor will give the patient a true ‘choice’.