Dr. Catherine Kim of Simi Valley, Calif. can't do it. Her practice as an obstetrician-gynecologist is based on medical science. But her convictions as a born-again Christian sculpt every aspect of her life, from the Bible stories she reads to her kids before bedtime to the prayers she offers people who visit her office.

Because of her beliefs, Kim won't perform abortions and won't provide emergency contraceptives that are used after intercourse. She won't give referrals either because that would be participating in acts she sees as immoral.

"Just like they have the right to choose, I have a right to choose," she said, suggesting that pushing doctors to mute the influence of faith on their practice is discrimination. "The doctor has the right to act and practice according to his or her convictions."

 

(Read more at http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/37085 )

 
 

4 Comments

  1. Kevin James says:

    How far does this right go if a medical professional is accepting government funding for their practice? But, too, in some states medical personnel have no choice but to accept government medicare and medicade. Where does a physians choice come into play there?

    These questions need clarification. What is the balance between faith and science? Does one override the other? How are they kept in balance so we don't go to the dark ages where faith trumped scientific thought, nor to today's tendency to put science above belief and we start mixing genetic material of different species to produce glowing pigs from jelly fish? Where is the sensible center, or is there one?

  2. Kevin James says:

    How far does this right go if a medical professional is accepting government funding for their practice? But, too, in some states medical personnel have no choice but to accept government medicare and medicade. Where does a physians choice come into play there?

    These questions need clarification. What is the balance between faith and science? Does one override the other? How are they kept in balance so we don't go to the dark ages where faith trumped scientific thought, nor to today's tendency to put science above belief and we start mixing genetic material of different species to produce glowing pigs from jelly fish? Where is the sensible center, or is there one?

  3. When it comes to rights, there are often two sides to a coin. Expansion of one side's rights contracts anothers, and the state sometimes has to determine which answer will cause the least harm.

    For instance, what if every doctor said that they would not perform some service because of their beliefs? On the other hand, how realistic is that scenario? What constitutes a belief? Does it depend on what the majority say, or does it depend on a higher truth?

    These are tough questions you're asking, Kevin. I hope we can come up with the right answer.

  4. When it comes to rights, there are often two sides to a coin. Expansion of one side's rights contracts anothers, and the state sometimes has to determine which answer will cause the least harm.

    For instance, what if every doctor said that they would not perform some service because of their beliefs? On the other hand, how realistic is that scenario? What constitutes a belief? Does it depend on what the majority say, or does it depend on a higher truth?

    These are tough questions you're asking, Kevin. I hope we can come up with the right answer.

 
 
%d bloggers like this: