In a case that occurred in California, a woman named Guadalupe t. Benitez was receiving infertility treatments to have a child with her partner of the same sex. However, this was put to a stop by physicians Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton who refused to continue with the treatments because they had religious beliefs that homosexuals should not have children with the use of artificial insemination. Fortunately for Benitez, she found another physician to continue with the treatments and had a son of her own. This case brings on a question that addresses a moral dilemma and will be discussed in this paper, the question is as follows; Do health care professionals have a right to refuse to provide treatment to lesbian patients on religious grounds?
…show more content…
In a medical practice, as long as the patient is competent and understands the treatment, then a physician should not be able to override a patients decision for treatment and by doing this, the physician is violating the patients autonomy. It can be argued that the physician also has the right to autonomy, however, let it be noted that this is the career that the doctor was educated, trained for, and most likely, this is the career that they wanted to do. Therefore, it is especially important that the physician do their job as expected regardless of how they feel about the situation as the physician’s main focus should be on the care of the patient (Parker, 2011). Conscientious objection gives the assumption that physicians are allowed to opt out of a particular situation regardless of the fact that they were hired to do that job and this is a large reason why physicians feel as if they have a right to refuse to do their …show more content…
By refusing to provide infertility treatments to Benitez for religious reasons, the physician immediately forgets what is best for the patient. As mentioned previously, a doctor’s job should be to make the patient a priority, as this is the physician’s job. It may be challenging to put aside religious beliefs, but the doctor should not have any role in the decision making process. By refusing to treat the patient for the physicians own personal benefit, this shows paternalism by stating that not providing infertility treatments is what will be best for the competent
In a medical practice, as long as the patient is competent and understands the treatment, then a physician should not be able to override a patients decision for treatment and by doing this, the physician is violating the patients autonomy. It can be argued that the physician also has the right to autonomy, however, let it be noted that this is the career that the doctor was educated, trained for, and most likely, this is the career that they wanted to do. Therefore, it is especially important that the physician do their job as expected regardless of how they feel about the situation as the physician’s main focus should be on the care of the patient (Parker, 2011). Conscientious objection gives the assumption that physicians are allowed to opt out of a particular situation regardless of the fact that they were hired to do that job and this is a large reason why physicians feel as if they have a right to refuse to do their …show more content…
By refusing to provide infertility treatments to Benitez for religious reasons, the physician immediately forgets what is best for the patient. As mentioned previously, a doctor’s job should be to make the patient a priority, as this is the physician’s job. It may be challenging to put aside religious beliefs, but the doctor should not have any role in the decision making process. By refusing to treat the patient for the physicians own personal benefit, this shows paternalism by stating that not providing infertility treatments is what will be best for the competent