Doesn't rape interfere with God's plan? I refuse to believe that God would want a woman to have her rapist's baby.

This almost makes me want to be denied care so I can sue for malpractice.

Why are these people in medicine at all?
Don't ALL prescriptions "interfere with god's plans" for our bodies? If god planned for Dick to have crippling arthritis, who is some mere mortal of a pharmacist to interfere? If god planned for Jane to have high cholesterol, she should not be allowed to thwart his plan!
If it were really all about "god's plan" they'd apply the rule across the board.

If you're incapable of providing medical services to your patients, don't be a doctor. How is this difficult to understand? Oh, that's right -- they've got political axes to grind, so that's why they chose this profession.

The conspiracy theorist in me is coming out again. I think another reason conservatives don't support universal healthcare is to limit the options women have when seeking reproductive care. One could say, "Well, Dr. Ross' patients could just see another doctor," but what if he's the only doctor in your area who's covered by your insurance?

If it were really all about "god's plan" they'd apply the rule across the board.

Hear, hear!

Don’t all kinds of medical interfere with god’s plan for us to be sick, die in child birth, die of malaria, etc etc? Or any kind of technology for that matter?

And here is an anecdote from my personal experience on this subject: A couple of weeks ago at our local pp I met a young woman who was there with her mom seeking abortion. About a month before that her mother had taken her to a clinic to for a pelvic exam and to get contraception (she was not at the time sexually active). The nurse or doctor had performed the pelvic exam but refused to prescribe contraception. A month later she was pregnant and getting an abortion.

I think the continued efforts of Dick Cheney's doctors to keep his heart beating is obviously interfering with God's plan for Cheney's long-overdue demise.

Or does it not work like that? Does God only have plans for women's bodies? Maybe that's it. Men's bodies are their own domain, but God has plans for us. We're special!

Doesn't rape interfere with God's plan? I refuse to believe that God would want a woman to have her rapist's baby.

Well, Jess, the "explanation" that I've heard from this is that 1) it's not the child's fault they were conceived in that manner and 2)it is an opportunity to bring a new life into this world who "otherwise" would have not been conceived.

While we never had this in our classes there have been cases where anti-choice groups will bring in the offspring of a rapists and have them talk to classes with the message "I have a right to be here too/My mother didn't hold it against me/Look, I turned into a good person," etc. etc. Which just begs the question of, since the rape resulted in you, and you're such an awesome, well adjusted person, should your mother's rapist have been punished (if he was at all) and does that make rape justifiable. It's hilarious to watch anti-choicers hem and haw at that question.

And that doctor is a dick. They always pick and choose what "medicine" they get to rightfully practice and it always somehow ends up being either reproduction or right to life cases that they decide they have the right to interfere with another's choices. If I'm taking birth control it doesn't reflect on YOU. If I'm having premarital sex it has nothing to do with YOUR SOUL, so leave mine alone.

Do you suppose he would also think it's OK to refuse to treat a smoker with lung cancer or an alcoholic with liver problems? Letting them suffer and die would be a fitting punishment for their wicked, sinful ways, right?

Asshat. Judges judge people. Doctors treat them.

Someone's clearly in the wrong line of work.

Given what his patients apparently believe, his conduct is probably in violation of the following Viriginia Code of Conduct pertaining to medical practitioners:

18VAC85-20-29. Practitioner responsibility.

A. A practitioner shall not:

2. Engage in an egregious pattern of disruptive behavior or interaction in a health care setting that interferes with patient care or could reasonably be expected to adversely impact the quality of care rendered to a patient.

You can do your own research here.

I had horrible cramps as a teenager. I used to throw up and pass out and no matter how much advil I shoved down my throat it was not going away. I started on birth control at 15 so that I could live my life and not collapse in the bathroom once a month. I didn't lose my virginity until three years later.

Just because a woman wants birth control does not mean that she's having sex. While that is usually the case, assuming that she wants the pill to stop herself from having babies is in itself judgemental. What if his patient were a nun with PCOS? What if it were a teenage girl with horrible acne that would not go away with any other treatement. My best friend is epileptic and uses the nuva ring year round, without any breaks to have her period because the stress it causes on her body triggers seizures. She's also a lesbian and will never (willingly) have sex with a man.

When I was a teenager, everybody I knew was on birth control, and most of us were not having sex. This doctor is denying basic medical care to his female patients. It's like a scientologist psychiatrist who would refuse prozac to a suicidally depressed patient. It is malpractice because he is not giving the patients what they really need. I hope the women that this guy has denied BC to sue the pants off him.

this d-bag should have his medical license revoked.

sarahMC--excellent point re: god's "plan"

if he didn't want to prescribe contraception, he should have picked another career, or at least specialized in an area of medicine completely unrelated to uterii. that's like one of those nutjob tax protesters working for the IRS and refusing to investigate cases of tax evasion.

Cripes. I hope if he ever injures his gonads in an accident, the doctor he sees is as much of an asshole as he is.

"Sorry, I can't fix your man-bits, dude. It's against God's plan to interfere with the course of nature. You'll just have to live with it. Maybe if you hadn't been such a man-slut, God wouldn't have punished you this way."

also, i love the rapist bit. i mean, come on, IF THE RAPIST GAVE HER A BABY, HE SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED--WE SHOULD GIVE HIM A MEDAL!

i'm actually surprised that there haven't been more stories on this trend (that i've seen at least). all the stories i've read are about pharmacists, but i grew up in abstinence-only ground zero and one of the biggest ab-only/anti-choice advocates in my town was a female ob/gyn who would not prescribe contraceptives. this was a good ten years ago so i'd expect it to have gotten more play.

I'll bet he doesn't advertise his unwillingness to prescribe BC.

I also bet he accepts payment from women to whom he has denied care.

We need to stop paying MDs who refuse to give us basic services. Who's with me?

If I'm taking birth control it doesn't reflect on YOU. If I'm having premarital sex it has nothing to do with YOUR SOUL, so leave mine alone.

Exactly, UltraMagnus. I go to the doctor to get medical care not spiritual guidance. If I thought I needed that, I would seek out the appropriate person. Not my doctor! Geez.
And you are right-on with your assessment of these freaks. They only services/products they seem to refuse are directly related to women's reproductive health. I have never heard of a physician or pharmacist refusing to prescribe and/or fill anything for a man. Hmmmm.....

I think the continued efforts of Dick Cheney's doctors to keep his heart beating is obviously interfering with God's plan for Cheney's long-overdue demise.

Yeah. When I heard they had to shock him yesterday, my first thought is "WTF? Is the man inhuman...why won't he die already!"
Then I felt bad for wishing for someone's death.

MLEmac: But you are a feminist. So, the birth control didn't turn you into a slutty whore, but it did make you a feminazi. So see? Birth control is bad, mkay?
/sarcasm

So does this mean he'd be OK with my refusing to sell him (or his wife) ham or chicken at the grocery store if I told him I was a yogini and believed that his eating meat was participating in the mass murder and exploitation of animals and would result in accumulation of bad karma which could negatively affect his next birth? Of course, I would never do that. Whoever comes into my line at work can buy all the meat they want and I will ring them up because it's none of my business what other people eat. Just like it's none of this asshat's business whether a woman is choosing to use birth control.

Religious people are creepy... Very strange people, IMO.

I love how people like him only care that the child is born, they could give a crap if a kid has a horrible life bceause their parents were very unprepared [like pro-lifers].

MLEmac, I hear ya. So many of my friends went on the pill at 15 or 16 to help with incapacitating cramps or acne or super long periods. For many women, the inability to become pregnant is an afterthought to the other benefits. It pretty much just seems like anti-choice physicians and pharmicists want women to face as much pain and suffering as possible.

And what happens when a woman finds out this twit won't prescribe her the birth control she needs? She'll need to see another doctor. Which often means taking another day off work, which for many women means a day without pay. (And it could be weeks later, weeks in which she could become pregnant.) If she has health insurance, frequently it will only pay for one physical every few years, or one visit to an OB/GYN a year, so she'll probably have to pay for the next visit in full. How many poor or even middle-class women can afford that? This guy's "principles" could cost these women hundreds of dollars each. Is he paying for that, or at least giving the patient a refund for her visit, or not billing her insurance? Of course not. He's getting paid, and he undoubtedly sleeps well at night, thinking about how he's part of God's plan to make little babies.

Exactly BluePencils!
And they (usually) won't tell you their prescribing habits over the phone before you set up an appointment either. No, you just have to waste your time, pay the self-satisfied bastard and try again.

Docs like this are the main reason that I switched to a female gyno. I don't know if my former male gyno would have actually denied treatment or anything, but I felt a "republican vibe" from him and wasn't willing to take the chance.

And these issues only come up for this practice area. I don't have to worry that my dermatologist's political beliefs would impact the quality of the care I receive.

With the idea of bringing babies into the world but not making provisions to care for them, I just have to wonder how the religious zealots feel about creating a whole separate class of single mothers with their no abortion/no contraception policies, especially where rape, incest and unsuitable mothers/fathers are concerned.

Or is it their ultimate plan to force everyone to breed constantly, swelling the entire world into a horror of starvation, overcrowding and early death?

You know, I think this guy has a right not to prescribe contraception if it offends his religious views. And there are plenty of fields of medicine that would never confront him with that choice. He could have been an ophthalmologist, say, or an orthopedic surgeon. If your religious principles prevent you from carrying out the responsibilities of your job, then fine, don't carry them out. But you should also find another line of work.

It really burns me up that doctors, or should I say quacks because that is exactly what they are, in Catholic hospitals are allowed to play God with women's lives. This is one more reason why we need an Equal Rights Amendment in addition to the over 365 million reasons that I have come up with since early 2004.

RileyStClair, I absolutely agree with your opening sentence. People who refuse women EC and other birth control medications, regardless of reason, should not be in the medical profession at all. If a woman I know was denied birth control -- a basic healthcare necessity -- I would have told her to sue the hell out of that quack. This is why we need to put laws on the books that would allow women to sue doctors who deny women birth control, and waive all caps on damages for sex discrimination and malpractice.

I agree that this man has violated his hypocratic oath, and that this kind of paternalistic judgement perpetuates the cycle of children being born to a parent or parents that are not able, or do not want, to care for them. However, I don't agree with some of the previous comments about this being a male obgyn thing. I had a male gyno who performed a tubal ligation on me when I was still in my twenties, and I do not have children. I thought I would have to beg and plead, but I did not. I also know of female ob/gyn's who are just as anti-choice as the man in this interview.

hi! this is my first time here. I have just finished reading Jessic´s book (a friend from the US gave it to me)I´m totally in for birth control, and i agree with all of you with physicians NOT being allowed to decide on our lives. They may give advice, but, ultimately, it HAS to be your choice to take it or not.I liked most things in the book, but I DONT agrre with abortion, but not on a religious ground, I just FEEL, deep in my guts, that a baby IS a baby from the very first moment it´s conceived, so for me abortion is killing. I have many friends who have had one, and i swear i´ve never ever made any judgements. I understand why they chose to do it, but i dont share that.Hope to be understood, this my first time ever in this kind of things,i´m really enthusiastic about it>!
Florargentina

Florargentina, welcome!

I think what you're trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you are not pro-abortion, but you are pro-choice, and if given that choice, you will choose not to have an abortion. That is entirely your prerogative, and I don't think anyone's going to knock you for it, as long as you're acknowledging certain realities surrounding abortion and why women make that choice. I don't think any woman who needs an abortion is excited about the prospect. I think it's a last resort decision, and I don't think any woman who makes that decision lightly. I, like you, hope to God I never feel like I need to have an abortion. However, I don't think a woman who feels like she needs to have an abortion should be denied access. As the Clintons put it, abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

"I also know of female ob/gyn's who are just as anti-choice as the man in this interview."

This is true, and the whole episode brings up a "standard of care" debate. If I may chime in with my vast experience as a third year med student.

It is considered a "standard of care" by all the OB/GYNs I know to assist with and help plan for contraception, no matter what their religious belief, to the point that it is expected of any practicing OB/GYN. Doing otherwise would be a betrayal of their position and of the patient, no different an outrage than if (hypothetically) a Muslim refused to treat an alcoholic for religious reasons. I don't know how it is in this doctor's state, but I don't see how he is not opening himself up to liability and/or possible disciplinary action by his state medical board.

However, it is not considered a standard of care to provide elective abortions (called "therapeutic abortions" or TABs in medical lingo) on demand and if the life of the mother is not in danger. Instead, this is entirely at the doctor's discretion. Many OBs and family docs that I worked under were vehemently anti-choice, including some women. And while I certainly disagreed with their beliefs, I had to respect them.

Oh, and it is entirely a myth that women OB/GYNs are automatically more respectful of their patients. Some of the most wonderful, caring and skilled OB/GYNs that I worked under were men, and I also met a couple women who, uh, shall we say, exhibited the opposite qualities. But the vast majority of the male OBs left practicing are of the older generation as women completely dominate OB residencies. It is a shame that men have been driven out of the field.

Interestingly enough, OB/GYN programs now sometimes practice reverse affirmitive action and give special preferences to male applicants.

Anyway, just my rambling perspective on the matters... oh and the doctor in this piece should have his license suspended.

I would bet everything I have in this life that this "doctor" is prescribing viagra to 65 year old men who NATURALLY can no longer get erections so they can have frivilous sex that will (probably) not result in pregnancy.

I also bet he's giving men vasectomies so they can have frivilous sex that will not result in pregnancies.

Oh, and I was being self-deprecating above in calling my experience as an MS3 "vast." Lol. :)

thank you DrkEyedCajn!!!!That is EXACTLY how i feel about this. and I agree with you; none of the friends i named had a " light" time when they had the abortion, i know how hard it was for them, and i think , as in any other hard time in life with anyone but especially the loved ones, we have to be supportive and caring. nobody who has done something that was difficult needs to be judged! We need love and support. I have a friend who has chosen the "L" way, and she recently came out of the closet with her family, and her mother was great! she is a strong religious believer, but she just said to her daughter:" no matter what you do, I love you", that was it!and this great mum happens to be my 56 year-old sister!Hope i learn from her!

ah! something else!I agree with ForbiddenComma , if we are being feminists, then we should not think that ALL men doctors are disrespectful or not caring about us, just because they are men. I´ve always seen male doctors and none of them has ever been other than great to me, they ´ve always listened to my needs and respected me as a woman, asking me questions like" how would you like to take care?", and showing me all the options, and giving advice on the best ways, but the choice has always been on me. Also, I´ve known of women doctors who are the worst anti-everything!and the most " machistas" ever! (sorry, i´m from argentina, we use this word a lot here, don´t know the english for it)Bye, thanks again!

this is a tangent, so i apologize, but with all the talk of male vs female ob/gyns, i started thinking.

i don't assume all male ob/gyns are bad and all female ones are good or anything ridiculous like that. but is it sexist of me to prefer a female doctor?

if i were in the market for a new doctor got a referral from a friend or something of a really good male ob/gyn that my insurance would cover, i would probably try him out, but if i'm blindly looking through the list of ob/gyns my insurance provides without knowing any of them, i will invariably go with a woman.

i just feel like i kind of want someone messing around down there and advising me who has the same equipment.

I always understood that OB/GYN was the one field that women doctor's had not been able to break into with significant numbers yet. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting a female gyno. I think I'd care less now, but for my first pelvic exam, I would have cried had the doctor been a man. It's just a matter of your comfort level.

Dr. Ross in the piece practices in suburban D.C. where there are hundreds of family practice and ob/gyn docs who could provide the services needed. So it doesn't offend me that he takes that stance. His patients who need or want the service can readily get it elsewhere. I would have a big problem with it if he were the only provider in the community empowered to give the service. That has been true with some of the pharmacy cases.

Similarly, in a community that has hundreds of criminal lawyers, I would not blame one for refusing to defend an accused rapist.

"I always understood that OB/GYN was the one field that women doctor's had not been able to break into with significant numbers yet. Correct me if I'm wrong."

OB/GYN residencies are the most female-dominated around, followed by pediatrics. It is true that older, attending OB/GYNs are mostly male at the moment (just like every other specialty), but that is only because they are from a generation where the vast majority of doctors in total were male. If you see an OB/GYN under the age of 35 or so, chances are it will be a woman. Especially if it's a resident.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12915.html

As a side observation... it is a shame that even highly trained and educated graduating med students follow the same gender stereotypes as everyone else. Pediatrics is mostly female (oooohh! look at the babies!) while Surgery is mostly male. (me male, me work with hands, me cut you with shiny sharp thing)

Don't ALL prescriptions "interfere with god's plans" for our bodies? If god planned for Dick to have crippling arthritis, who is some mere mortal of a pharmacist to interfere? If god planned for Jane to have high cholesterol, she should not be allowed to thwart his plan! If it were really all about "god's plan" they'd apply the rule across the board.

Right on, SarahMC.

And besides saying "Fuck Dr. Ross", I am speechless.

This happened to me. My family doc said she didn't provide birth control so I figured I'd follow up with another doc later.

Problem was, I concieved when the condom broke and the morning after pill failed...talk about rotten luck.

Luckily, I found out that I'd somehow miscarried at the abortion clinic, so I got to avoid invasive uterine surgery.

All I could think was, is this where my doctor wanted me to end up when she denied my request for birth control pills?

MLEmac, regarding your question of the number of women in ob/gyn, my impression is that they are better represented there than in many other specialties. In Dr. Ross' town there are 17 ob/gyns listed and of those 8 have female first names (Amy, Gloria, etc.) 7 have male names and 2 I couldn't tell. In the same town there were 31 family practice doctors and 9 of them obviously female. In contrast there are 9 general surgeons, no female first names and two I can't tell.

SixtiesLiberal said
Dr. Ross in the piece practices in suburban D.C. where there are hundreds of family practice and ob/gyn docs who could provide the services needed. So it doesn't offend me that he takes that stance. His patients who need or want the service can readily get it elsewhere. I would have a big problem with it if he were the only provider in the community empowered to give the service. That has been true with some of the pharmacy cases.

They can only access said services if they have access, either through their insurance or their ability to pay out of pocket. That said, it's a lot less likely for people in suburban DC to not be able to get any kind of access outside of this quack, than say, if said quack were practicing in rural Kansas, but, as the oft-quoted phrase goes "an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

I would flip out if I was raped and some asshole doctor who was male and would never ever have to consider having a child that was the product of a rape tell me I couldn't have EC. Seriously, they would have to arrest me. Why do these people go to medical school if they can't provide the medical care that people need? There are other professions out there, were that kind of close minded bullshit is appreciated, like being a priest! Or working for Fox News! Or being a republican politician!

Seriously, this doctor should have his medical license taken away if he truly believes in denying services to his patients.

"Pediatrics is mostly female (oooohh! look at the babies!) while Surgery is mostly male. (me male, me work with hands, me cut you with shiny sharp thing)"

ForbiddenComma, I'm afraid I think you're vastly oversimplifying this (though I don't know much about peds, I'll admit). Surgery (at least in vet med) is one of the worst fields as far as time commitment goes.

Considering the division of childcare in our society... sx is not really an option for a lot of people who have dependants.

And so while I agree that it's still got a lot of sexism going on in deciding who gets to intern/ be resident etc; part of that is bc if you want to have a family and actually spend time with them... you're probably going to pick a different area.

Of course the fact that the field is designed for people who don't have to cook/clean/raise their own children... is super sexist as well. Esp considering how long people have to basically be a low-wage (relatively) student before you actually earn enough money to pay back your student loans. You'd be crazy to try to have kids while you're a student, interning, being a resident, etc (IMO)... and that can last well into your 30s depending upon when you got into med (or vet) school.

The whole system needs to be recalled. And we can start with ppl unwilling to provide basic care.

I live in a D.C. suburb, so at least I know what doctor to avoid.

I can't stand this. If you don't "believe" in birth control, WHY be a gynecologist!? Just so you can push your personal motives on women? So you can tell them how wrong they are when they come to you for help? So you can play a part in bringing children into the world who are going to grow up poor with an unprepared mother?

Seriously why isn't this illegal, god knows if a man was refused Viagra on a moral basis no one would stand for it. Or if someone was refused allergy medication, or ANYTHING else.

I live in a D.C. suburb, so at least I know what doctor to avoid.

I can't stand this. If you don't "believe" in birth control, WHY be a gynecologist!? Just so you can push your personal motives on women? So you can tell them how wrong they are when they come to you for help? So you can play a part in bringing children into the world who are going to grow up poor with an unprepared mother?

Seriously why isn't this illegal, god knows if a man was refused Viagra on a moral basis no one would stand for it. Or if someone was refused allergy medication, or ANYTHING else.

First, I want to get out of the way that I think refusing to give birth control, the morning after pill or an abortion is a violation of the hypocratic oath. I'm not a doctor, but after reading the oath, I find that's my interpretation of it.

As a man, I would never deny a woman her right to anything, regardless of my relationship with her (whether she be girlfriend, sister, mother or complete stranger).

That said, I understand the guy's conflict. He doesn't want to violate his personal beliefs (as ridiculous as they might be), and he's getting alot of crap for that. There's a difference between judging someone and refusing to take part in something. I try and remain non-judgmental, but there are plenty of things that I don't do (the short list includes smoking, drugs, booze and killing people).

My only suggestion for this guy is that if he had a problem with a major social issue, (especially within the medical community) he shouldn't have become a doctor. At some point, you have to remember that it is not your place to judge how someone got into a situation, how they got sick, how they got hurt, but it is your job to heal them and to make them feel better.

The fact that this falacious religious dogmatism was applied to rape victims is particularly troubling, because he's talking about denying someone reprieve from a situation that's victimizing them. That, though, is just the aggravation after the injury for me. My real issue with this guy is his refusal to offer basic medical care to those who request it and those who need it.

If I met this guy, I probably wouldn't do any of the dramatic things that all of the people have suggested in the comments thus far, just offer him the basic piece of advice that I offer all of the other Christians I meet who feel this way, along with a little extra.

Jesus said "He among you without sin, cast the first stone." (NOTE: This was said about a woman's right to do what she wants with her body)

I'd also like to add:

Jesus healed on the Sabbath, regardless of those who told him that it was unlawful.

I'm not trying to Bible-beat, but sometimes it's best to talk to people in a language that they understand. Even as an atheist, I don't have a problem comprimising my belief a little bit to speak in Biblical hypotheticals.

I'm also not trying to sound preachy, just think that we should be aware that hating people because they're ignorant isn't going to make them any less ignorant.

I'm a Christian, but I'm pro-choice, and I think this guy's license should be revoked. I bet he doesn't supply birth control or the morning after pill to married women, either, because that still goes against Catholic doctrine. (Or maybe he doesn't think married women would want birth control, because all married couples want babies. Lots and lots of babies.) Total crap. No other profession would allow religious indignation to interfere with performance, and I seriously doubt anything other than Christian indignation would be tolerated in this case.

Fucking hell, what'll be next? Will Jehovahs Witness doctors be able to start refusing to give blood transfusions because it's against their religion? Or 7th Day Adventists refuse to treat all patients who don't adopt a vegetarian life-cycle? Or will Buddhist doctors refuse life-saving treatments, because if the patient dies, it's no big deal because they'll be reincarnated anyway.

No one would tolerate this crap, except it's just women-aimed bigotry, so it doesn't count.

This guy is a fucking douche and should have his license revoked. He's a BAD DOCTOR.

he doesn't even take into account the vastnumber of reasons people might be on hormonal birth control. like, norbizness, i'm on it to treat menstrual related issues - i have PMDD, and without the pill, i'd be unable to function. it causes a clinical depression and get sick enough to have to miss work.

would this guy deny antidepressants to someone suffering from depression? or any other medication?

....i don't get it.

he doesn't even take into account the vastnumber of reasons people might be on hormonal birth control. like, norbizness, i'm on it to treat menstrual related issues - i have PMDD, and without the pill, i'd be unable to function. it causes a clinical depression and get sick enough to have to miss work.

would this guy deny antidepressants to someone suffering from depression? or any other medication?

....i don't get it.

Not that it makes him any better, but the article says that he's a family physician, NOT an OB/GYN.

May I just say that hearing things like this makes me glad that I just got an IUD...

all of this makes me glad that my dad is a doctor, and if some jerk ever tries to deny me a prescription, he could write me one.

I often refer to him as my dealer ;-)

In all seriousness, I used to wonder about what I would do if I were denied birth control at a pharmacy. The scenario always played out in my mind in a way that involves me making a big scene in front of all the other customers, and making sure I brought a considerable amount of embarrassment to the Pharmacist who refused to fill my prescription.

It makes me sick to think that someone actually has a legal right to deny me the prescription that allows me to actually get out of bed during my period.

Granted, this doctor's viewpoint is odious, and I definitely agree that prospective patients should be told on the front end about this aspect of his practice. I am curious, though--would the critical commenters here hold a different view if Dr. Ross's specialty were something other than OB/GYN? Why or why not?

What really fucks me off about this is that shitbirds like him will be safe in their beds while OB/GYN's who actually do their jobs are going to be targets of harassment, violence & murder.

Case in point: I live in Vancouver, British Columbia, also the home of Dr. Gary Romalis. The guy has been the target of two assasinataion attempts, the 1st was being sniped in the kitchen of his home & the 2nd was someone coming at him with a knife in his office. Both attacks have yet to see anyone held accountabe.

I think another reason conservatives don't support universal healthcare is to limit the options women have when seeking reproductive care.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

This guy is a fucking douche and should have his license revoked. He's a BAD DOCTOR.

Cannot be said enough.

Dr. Ross in the piece practices in suburban D.C. where there are hundreds of family practice and ob/gyn docs who could provide the services needed. So it doesn't offend me that he takes that stance. His patients who need or want the service can readily get it elsewhere.

SixtiesLiberal--however, I really doubt that Dr Ross has his staff tell prospective patients before they make an appointment that he doesn't prescribe birth control. Which means that a patient has wasted time and money, and possibly her only insurance-covered doctor's visit of the year, on him. As I said above. No, he's not an OB/GYN, but a lot of women do get their birth control prescriptions from their GPs. That's the problem I have with this guy. If there are parts of his practice that he refuses to cover for personal reasons, he should tell all patients this up front, before they even get to his office. That way some poor woman doesn't have to take time off work and end up in debt because of his religious values. I'm not religious, but my mom is a practicing Episcopalian, and I know what she'd say about this guy: he's not very Christian. True Christians don't take advantage of people, and that's what he's doing, by performing a bait-and-switch on his patients. He's putting himself up as a "family" doctor when he's only a conservative Catholic version of a family doctor. And for all we know, he might have other areas where he practices his Catholicism. For example, what does a doctor who doesn't believe in divorce tell a patient that is obviously a battered spouse?

I'm not saying that doctors shouldn't have religious values. But it's the health and mental well-being of their patients that is under the care of a doctor--not their souls. Their souls are each patient's own affair. If a doctor cannot, in good conscience, care for a patient as he or she wants and needs, then that doctor should find another speciality where his or her religious values don't end up in conflict with complete and proper care of the patient. The problem is that I'm sure Dr Ross doesn't think he's inadequately caring for his patients.

Catholic educated here. It is traditional in catholicism to insist that no contraception is allowed, not even within marriage or for rape victims; no abortion, not even to save the life of the mother.
I would bet this doctor doesn't do vasectomies, but does prescribe Viagra (it's contraception, after all).
He might prescribe the pill if he truely believes the woman he prescribes it too will not have sex. At least, my parish priest told me the pill was allowed in that case.

This said, I am so happy that in my very catholic country there are still enough doctors prescribing contraceptives. To teenagers. For free. I only hope they will still be there when my kids hit puberty.

I could accept a pharmacist or doctor who's made provisions for someone else to do it (without the cost and inconvenience pointed out above)--but it's obvious this guy doesn't do that.
But the fact that not providing birth control is considered acceptable in a way refusing other meds wouldn't be--I can't see anyone backing a Christian Scientist who refused to provide medicine or ring it up at the checkout counter, for instance--isn't surprising at all.
Lung cancer is predominantly caused by smoking, but nobody ever refers to nonsmokers as "innocent victims" the way they do HIV patients who got the disease through transfusions. The majority of heart attacks come from bad diet, lack of exercise, too much fat, etc.--in short, the result of people's actions--but I can't imagine anyone objecting to a drug that immunizes people to heart attacks the way they do to HPV.
For that matter, I'm sure that if a Catholic salesclerk refused to ring up condoms, they wouldn't get as much support as professionals who provide women with birth control do.

I think the continued efforts of Dick Cheney's doctors to keep his heart beating is obviously interfering with God's plan for Cheney's long-overdue demise.

Thank you for making me chuckle in an otherwise bleak thread (and morning).

Anyhoo, *facepalm*

I guess I should count myself very lucky that I had a good OB/GYN when I lived in Georgia. I was put on birth control for PCOS the first time I went, and I never felt like there was any pressure to answer the "are you sexually active" portion to their standards. Of course, if I'd felt anything of the sort my ass would have been out of there so fast there would have been a Liza-shaped hole in the wall.

How is this LEGAL??????????

My family physician when I was a kid refused to prescribe birth control to me or my mom. He was a Catholic with 9 kids, and he always asked if I prayed my rosary (I'm Catholic too). He also gave the WORST pelvic exams in history.

I doubt the rosary would have helped when I was 15 and in the back seat of that car with my boyfriend...thank God my mom found a gyno for me by that point. (Condoms in my small town were stored in a locked display case.)

Dr. Ross in the piece practices in suburban D.C. where there are hundreds of family practice and ob/gyn docs who could provide the services needed. So it doesn't offend me that he takes that stance. His patients who need or want the service can readily get it elsewhere. I would have a big problem with it if he were the only provider in the community empowered to give the service. That has been true with some of the pharmacy cases.

It sets a standard. If it's okay for this guy to do it, it's okay for the next guy to do it, too. It offends me because his job is to make with the medicine, not to dispense religious advice. He had a patient who came to him with a legitimate and legal request, and rather than meet his patient's needs, he ignored them. And do we want to take bets on whether he makes his policy clear prior to giving services? Because I'd bet he waits until after the check-up, after a financial obligation has been made, before he mentions "Oh, I don't do that."

Similarly, in a community that has hundreds of criminal lawyers, I would not blame one for refusing to defend an accused rapist.

You're ignoring some pretty substantial differences.
1. A defense lawyer is obligated to refuse a case if s/he believes that s/he can't provide a proper defense.
2. Accused criminals have the right to a public defender if they can't find a lawyer of their own.
3. Doctors take an oath to provide for the well being of their patients, and this guy is patently ignoring that oath. He is placing his personal feelings over the needs of the patient.

If he can't do his job because of his religious beliefs, he shouldn't be in that line of work.

SixtiesLiberal--however, I really doubt that Dr Ross has his staff tell prospective patients before they make an appointment that he doesn't prescribe birth control.

What bothers me more than his moralistic priggishness (is that a word?) is the notion of some of our posters here that someone should be forced to provide a service they are capable of providing, when there are other readily available people to provide the service. Some ob/gyns have dropped the ob part of their practice and refer their patients out when they become pregnant and want to have the baby.

SixtiesLiberal,
You don't think OB/GYNs who practice in areas with many other OB/GYNs should be "forced" to prescribe BC.
Do you think OB/GYNs who practice in areas without many other options should be?
Why should one sub-set of doctors be forced to provide that service but not the other?
What if ALL the OB/GYNs in a heavily populated area decide they don't want to write BC prescriptions anymore? Should one (or a few) of them be forced to continue doing so?

Sixties, you're conflating two very different things.

I actually had a gyn who was just a gyn, and after I got pregnant, she advised me that she didn't do obstretics, but she'd be happy to refer me to an obstretician if I decided to keep the pregnancy, or refer me to an abortion provider if I decided to abort it. (She didn't volunteer that last until I told her I was considering abortion, but she didn't give me crap about it either.) There was no sense of her wasting my time; she was my regular gyn, I'd known up front she didn't do ob, and I'd been using her to get my birth control pills titrated correctly and get my regular checkups. I didn't go in expecting the service of obstretics and not get it.

However, I have never gone to a *new* gynecologist without the motivation being bc pills. I'll go to my current gyn with any vag-related problem and regular checkups, but when I shop for a *new* gyn, it's always because I want BC pills. So if I went to a new gyn and she (I always go to female gyns -- going to a male gyn seems to me like going to a blind eye doctor) refused to prescribe BC on moral grounds, I would have wasted my time completely because that's what I would have gone *in* for.

Personally I would respond to any doctor who says "I'm sorry, I won't prescribe birth control pills" with "I'm sorry you feel that way, doctor, because you've just wasted both our time; I won't pay a doctor who won't provide the service I came in to receive." And then I won't pay her. And if she takes me to collections, I'll sue her for harassment because she's dunning me for a service I never received. But since I have insurance, I have the luxury of not having to pay up front; if you go to a doctor who demands payment up front because you don't have insurance, you're kind of screwed if they then won't prescribe for you. However, I would call my insurance and ask them if they could note in their provider directory that the doctor in question doesn't provide the main service women go to a gyn for (which they probably wouldn't do but they might drop the doctor out of fear of lots of nuisance complaints from insured women), and then I'd blog about the doctor, by name, extensively, on every "bad service" and "bad doctor" site I could find. But then again, I know how to use the Internet.

I really don't think a doctor should be in practice if they have a moral objection to prescribing simple, ordinary medication. But if they must be in practice, they should be required to post plainly on notices in the waiting room *and* to notify female patients calling for new appointments that they do not prescribe birth control. Let the woman bail before she sees the doctor, if she chooses.

1. A defense lawyer is obligated to refuse a case if s/he believes that s/he can't provide a proper defense.

2. Accused criminals have the right to a public defender if they can't find a lawyer of their own.

3. Doctors take an oath to provide for the well being of their patients, and this guy is patently ignoring that oath. He is placing his personal feelings over the needs of the patient.

You don't think OB/GYNs who practice in areas with many other OB/GYNs should be "forced" to prescribe BC. Do you think OB/GYNs who practice in areas without many other options should be?

Why should one sub-set of doctors be forced to provide that service but not the other?

What if ALL the OB/GYNs in a heavily populated area decide they don't want to write BC prescriptions anymore? Should one (or a few) of them be forced to continue doing so?

For example, some small town ob's will not deliver babies vaginally after a previous c-section (vaginal birth after c-section or "VBAC"). Those docs may not have the hospital resources to deal with the possible dire complications. Women who live in smaller towns and who want VBACs have to travel pretty far distances to get that service.

Ob/gyns who drop ob might do so for insurance reasons, risk of suit reasons or simply because they are tired of getting up in the middle of the night to deliver babies. The insurance reason may not be trivial, because the difference in annual premiums might be from $60,000 to $10,000.

My main point on this was that Ross was being pilloried by some for preventing patients from getting an accepted medical service, and in his situation he was not. I didn't mean to suggest that docs in small towns should be required to provide services they would rather not provide.

"Doesn't rape interfere with God's plan? I refuse to believe that God would want a woman to have her rapist's baby.

Well, Jess, the "explanation" that I've heard from this is that 1) it's not the child's fault they were conceived in that manner "

i'm no christian, but from what little i understand, isn't the idea of 'original sin' that we are carrying around the sin of adam and eve? so why wouldn't christians (only catholics?) blame a fetus of a rape victim for the sin of its father?

well my first reaction was *WTF?!?!?!?* and i think everyone has said everything that needs to be said about this case and that idiot doctor-but just out of curiosity-does that mean he denies condoms too? do doctors gives those out in the USA? and as someone who is religious i still dont understand how emergency contraception is like abortion-ITS NOT! not that its his right to decide what someone else should do with their body. damn this makes me angry!

sixties liberal, not to quibble, but the right/obligation of an attorney to refuse to take a particular case is actually related to competence because if an attorney vehemently believes that a particular client's objective is morally repugnant, it's much, much harder for him or her to provide zealous advocacy, which is what we are obligated to do.

anyway, obviously law and medicine are different for a variety of reasons.

as to the scenario sarahMC posited, where all the ob/gyns in a given area refuse to prescribe contraceptives, it's not as unlikely as you might think, i assure you. i am from a small town in texas. it can be pretty backwards. it would not surprise me at all if all of the handful of doctors in the area were fundamentalist christians and reactionaries and decided to all refuse. it's not really a can of worms i'm willing to open by allowing this one guy in suburban DC to get away with not doing his fucking job. no one held a gun to his head and forced him to practice medicine. like i said, this is the equivalent of one of those tinfoil hat wearing tax protesters working for the IRS and refusing to investigate tax evasion because he believes the income tax is unconstitutional. what would happen to that dude? he'd get FIRED.

It is interesting to ponder what this sort of precident sets up. I think we can all agree that if a person believes, as many do, that slaughtering and eating cows is mass murder of god's creatures, they should have the right to that belief. But if that belief means that they will not sell or serve meat to someone else, that person should make a decision not to work in a restaurant, grocery store, butcher's shop, etc. Same situation if a convenience store worker doesn't think it's moral to sell condoms. If the owner of any of those establishments decided to fire the worker for not doing their job, would that be considered religious descrimination? With a doctor's private practice, however, the doctor is his own boss, the owner of the company, so I'm not sure where that would fall legally, even though my personal feeling is that the doctor should have a moral obligation to provide patients with the care they need.
For that matter, does anyone know, in the cases of the pharmasists that refuse to provide EC, do the owners of the stores where they work condone the activity? Could they be fired, legally?

if an attorney vehemently believes that a particular client's objective is morally repugnant, it's much, much harder for him or her to provide zealous advocacy, which is what we are obligated to do.

it's not really a can of worms i'm willing to open by allowing this one guy in suburban DC to get away with not doing his fucking job.

Access to all forms of contraception might well be a problem in an area such as yours. I don't think forcing unwilling docs to do it is a viable solution to that problem.

There is a big difference between legal services and medical services in 99.9% of all cases. First, very few legal matters are time sensitive unless you are running up against a statute of limitations, and that would normally involve a civil matter where no one's life or health is as stake. For a death penalty case, if you can't afford a lawyer one will indeed be provided to you. Also, the FDA does not review and approve various standard mixes of legal services, nor can you go into a legal emergency room where the law requires that someone see you if you have an emergent condition and adhere to a generally recognized standard of care. You can strain and come up with some similar scenarios (like writing a will on a death bed), but by and large, we don't see legal services the same way as medical services in this society. Therefore, I have no problem requiring by law that any doctor or pharmicist proscribe any medicine that is FDA approved for the condition the patient is describing, whether it is the prevention of contraception or the chemical termination of a pregnancy. If the legislature wants to make a drug illegal it can, but since we give certain people a monopoly on the perscription pad, thereby squelching competiton (i.e. millions of viagra and BC stands on every corner like hot dog carts), the people with the monopoly should not be able to withhold the goods.

I really don't think a doctor should be in practice if they have a moral objection to prescribing simple, ordinary medication. But if they must be in practice, they should be required to post plainly on notices in the waiting room *and* to notify female patients calling for new appointments that they do not prescribe birth control. Let the woman bail before she sees the doctor, if she chooses.

Given the climate around reproductive health and justice right now, the next time I need a new doctor I will definitely be going to the first appointment with a set of very specific interview questions. I do not want any doctor who would categorically rule out certain health care options for ideological reasons.

So by his logic, he shouldn't really be engaging in something like IVF treatments, since it's "God's plan" for the woman/couple to be infertile.

My gyn is at a Catholic hospital, but luckily I never had any trouble.

Funny how conservatives want people to respect their choices and stay out of their business yet are incapable of doing so themselves.

Therefore, I have no problem requiring by law that any doctor or pharmicist proscribe any medicine that is FDA approved for the condition the patient is describing, whether it is the prevention of contraception or the chemical termination of a pregnancy.

Well expressed, but I disagree. I'm in favor of Death with Dignity laws, like Oregon's (see http://www.compassionandchoices.org/)
but I doubt those laws require all docs to provide those services and I would not favor such a requirement.

Has this guy forgotton that he doesn't have a RIGHT to be a doctor?

Something like 98% of women use some form of birth control in their lifetime, and many, many of those use the Pill. The Pill is also a common medication used to treat everything from debilitating cramps to acne. If you know three adult women, I can almost guarantee that one of them has taken the Pill at some point.

And - duh - a woman can only get the Pill via prescription, which almost always comes from a gyn or a GP.

So, it strains credulity to think that this guy went through 4 years of med school, an internship, and a GP residency without foreseeing that someone MIGHT expect him to give out a birth control pill - nay, that it is part of his JOB.

Why would he decide to go into medicine, especially the area of medicine he's in, if he didn't want to hand out the Pill? He's basically saying that he doesn't want to treat women.

He wants to practice medicine? Fine. Be a cardiologist, because I can see where a cardiologist wouldn't expect to hand out the Pill. But this guy wants his cake (to be a GP) and to eat it too (to do a half-assed job).

Anyway, he can't be that good of a Catholic if he expects to never sacrifice for his faith. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, for pete's sake! And this guy is saying that because he CHOSE to go into medicine and he continues to CHOOSE to see patients, that he can provide substandard care just because he's Catholic, and not be hassled for it - or even make money from it? Ridiculous!