NO. Not under ANY circumstances whatsoever. If they do, they should lose their license to practice medicine.

The hospital forms have a check box for "Do you agree to a blood transfusion in the event of a life-threatening incident?" I asked "Does anyone NOT check that box?" They said "Yes. Two groups. Jehovaha's Witnesses and racists who'd rather die than risk having non-white blood." Now, that is hate.

I think "First, do no harm" pretty well rules that out.

Medicine isn't for everyone. Just like being a county clerk in Kentucky is not for everyone.

The patient can refuse it, but the doctor has to offer all life saving procedures to the patient.

It would certainly be a violation of their hyppocratic oath. If for some perverted reason they felt they should not intercede, the LEAST they should do would be to summon another doctor to take his place.

I've had it happen with my son. In short they got away with it. We had to get medication from a different doctor. It made me wish very hurtful things to them. Looking back, I wish I would have reported it to the AMA. Let me restate that, because at this point, I was too accepting of there position, and their position threatened my sons life. I will NEVER accept that again. They WILL get reported if that ever comes across my health or anyone I am in care of.

I am also a physician and don't believe it is a doctor's right to refuse treatment that a patient needs on the basis of his or her religion. I work for a Catholic hospital system, but I don't think I could work for them if I were in (for example) ob-gyn, where abortion and birth control become issues. I'm a child neurologist and there isn't much there is to fight about in my field. It's politically inactive

I hope not. If you're going into a role that requires science-based treatment, then legally you should prove that you're a science-based person.

Yes, at the likely expense of their job and the hospital's $.

No doctor has the right to withhold lifesaving treatment due to the doctors religious beliefs. One sentence in the Hippocratic oath states " I will apply for the benefits of the sick all measures which are required " Failure to comply is a breach of this oath.

If this isn't all sorted out before I get to the hospital, I am going to be blaming the hospital. This doctor didn't arrive on their doorstep that morning. I have no problem with the doctor and the hospital coming up with a Plan B to work around any personal issues and beliefs.

No, that is horrifying! If a doctor refuses to give life saving treatment, they should lose their license and be held responsible. People should not die because of a doctor's religious beliefs. They should not be doctors if they feel that strongly and need that option.

Hospitals, and public ones at that, should always remain a secular institution. If your religion interferes with your job, then find a new job instead of potentially bringing greater harm to someone in need. It's a cruel and disturbing thought that there are doctors out there who would refuse to do their very job because of religious reasons.

You're very job is to help and treat the sick and needy, if you can't do that because of some messed up religious differences, then your wasting you talents and put that patient in a greater state of distress. A hospital is a place of healing, political and religious ideologies be damned. It's disgraceful how a doctor would abandon the very altruistic nature of their profession, get away with it, and still sometimes try to act empathetic towards to patients plight.

You're religious freedom ends when other peoples health and livelihood are at stake.

No. If he/she is working in a public hospital, the public has a right to expect full and complete care without regard to religion, politics, or any other beliefs the doctor may hold. It shouldn't even be an issue.

No! Patents' rights should always rule.

Whose religious beliefs? The patient's or the doctor's? If the doctor harbors these religious beliefs he need to seek another profession. The patient's beliefs are another story. That is a legal question. The adult patient has the right to refuse treatment even if it means death. Where children are concerned it a complicated story. A child with cancer whose parents believe in alternative treatment and who believe chemo is wrong and dangerous - this has been a very sorry situation. We are in the dark woods concerning treatment of cancer. Some limited chemo works but most of the time doesn't. Science has a lot of work to do here.

I think you have a shitty religion, or religious beliefs if they allow you to discriminate or hate against others for simply trying to exist. I do not believe any legal system should allow someone to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against others.

No

No.

no i don't think so

I would say no. It would not only be wrong to do so considering it's a public and I'm assuming secular institution but they can be disbarred from the medical profession for violating their Hippocratic oath.

What are we talking about? A JW doctor? I would think that a person that devout would avoid that profession altogether. But on a tangent: