Doctors

TO TREAT OR TO REFUSE

To Treat or to Refuse

Argumentative Synthesis

Tatiana Fatrous

Lebanese American University

Abstract

This paper argues that doctors, throughout their practice of medicine, have the right at times to refuse treating their patients. It is known that the Hippocratic oath states that the health and well being of patients are always the doctors’ primary duty, and that they should always put their patients first. As a result, Avery and Brody (2009) both physicians, state that “all members of society have an ethical duty to rescue others in dire need of help when they are in a position to do so” (p. 41).) In addition, Siegler (1983), an associate professor of medicine, claims that it is the doctors’ duty to treat their patients whether they are being paid or not because they are not car mechanics or plumbers who only work if they are paid (pp.12-13). However, it is shown throughout the paper that doctors have the right to refuse handling patients if the medical case presented to them causes a conflict with their religious beliefs. Moreover, the inability of patients to pay their medical bills as well as hospitals’ lack of expense management to provide their doctors with benefits contribute to the reasons behind doctors’ right for refusal of treating patients. The paper, then, concludes that it is not always the physicians’ obligation to treat their patients. They have their freedom, but at the same time their freedom comes within limits.

Outline

I. Introduction

A. Anecdote

B. Controversy

C. Thesis Statement: Regardless of the fact that it is the doctors’ obligation to

treat their patients, doctors have the right to refuse treating because of certain religious and financial issues.

II. Doctors do not have the right to refuse treating their patients because it is their

obligation to treat.

A. Counterevidence

1. The Hippocratic oath

2. Ethical obligation

3. Siegler’s claim

B....