I just KNEW there was a simple solution here. Rather than curtailing conscience rights, if you want the birth control pill, and your doctor won’t prescribe it, why not… wait for it… go to a different doctor?
If a doctor, based on her experience and research, believes that liberation therapy (dilating and opening blocked neck veins) is not a good option for patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, must she provide that therapy simply because the patient demands it?
What about a doctor who is convinced that anti-cholesterol pills do more harm than good? What if a doctor refuses to prescribe birth control pills because she believes, apart from any religious teaching, that they compromise women’s health? Should this physician disregard her own research, analysis and conclusions and prescribe what she considers to be a dangerous product?
Does it really matter whether the doctor’s belief is characterized as scientific, religious, metaphysical, conscientious, or something else?
Certainly a doctor’s beliefs about what is, or is not, good medicine will sometimes inconvenience a patient. But what would be the consequences of forcing doctors to abandon their professional judgment and violate their conscience in order to pander to patients’ wishes? If the government compels doctors to supply whatever patients demand, this presupposes that a patient’s knowledge, training and judgment is at least equal to that of the doctor’s. And if so, why bother with a medical profession in the first place?
by 
Everyone has the right to a second opinion. And here in Canada, you don’t even have to pay for it! (Unless you want an opinion from the Mayo Clinic, I suppose.)
Just thought of something else. Birth control pills are contraindicated for a number of reasons: smokers, for example, should not get certain forms of birth control.
I think if you are a doctor who refuses to prescribe birth control, you need to expect a certain amount of notoriety. There is going to be some outrage among a certain sect that you won’t provide them with your contraception. On the other hand, tolerance is a two way street, and it is far less of an imposition for a patient to see another doctor than it is for a doctor to violate his conscience.
I’ve been following this issue quite closely, and the argument that I hear a lot is that there aren’t enough family physicians in Canada for people to just change doctors, therefore the doctors we do have need to toe the line. However, I think this argument doesn’t place enough value on the benefits of having a conscientious doctor. People who use this argument seldom think about what they are really asking for: a medical profession that cares more about money than it does about health.
The problem (if there really is one) is not that some doctors have differences of opinion. The problem is rather that we don’t have enough doctors for everyone to find a doc who is a good fit for them. We should focus on making sure that everyone has a family physician who supports their beliefs, and support the moral integrity of the healthcare providers we do have here and now.
Mary D. should take her conclusion even farther. If the state attempts to force the doctor to violate his conscience, then some doctors will simply quit or leave that state’s jurisdiction. The argument that scarcity of doctors requires all existing doctors to provide any and every treatment is thus self-defeating. Perhaps the laws of supply and demand have application here?