Letters to the Editor - May 1, 2006

Judge doctors on qualifications and sensitivity -- not race or religion - Time for men to feel the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy - Physicians should stick to providing information and let patients decide moral matters for themselves

Judge doctors on qualifications and sensitivity -- not race or religion

Regarding "Web sites let patients find like-minded physicians" (Article, March 27): Do we similarly promote sites for finding white doctors? Where do mixed-race doctors fit in? What of denominations and doctrinal differences within each religion? Does one restart his practice if his religious views change?

Is it not better to promote cultural awareness, sensitivity, and respect toward every patient among all doctors? I can give the same level of care and compassion to the devout or the agnostic, and I need to be cognizant of the idiosyncrasies of race and heritage, whether it be hypertension, thalassemia, or God's will. I see patients of other cultures, and the customs (especially toward treatment of women) vary widely.

Professional qualifications, including cultural/ethnic/racial/religious sensitivity are important: The vessel within which they are contained should not be so. If society is so insular that one cannot find important facts about a doctor from neighbors, co-workers, or church members, perhaps a site could be developed which lists numerous salient facts about each physician's beliefs, ethnicity, sexual preferences, attitudes toward same-sex couples, etc., as well as professional qualifications -- on the order of a dating service -- and match patients with compatible doctors within a specified geographical area.

I believe we should discourage such attempts at polarization, enlisting the aid of other personnel where necessary for broadening our cultural, ethnic, or racial perspectives.

--James A. Holder, MD, Mitchell, Ind.

Time for men to feel the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy

Regarding "South Dakota abortion law to challenge Roe v. Wade" (Article, March 20): I am tired of hearing of men getting into women's bodies, impregnating them and then leaving the women to fend for themselves. It is time for men to take responsibility for their own sexual behavior and use protection.

I suggest that legislatures consider also punishing the male component of an unwanted pregnancy. I believe with this procedure in place, a person might be quite protective of the remaining gonad.

--Lynne E. Miller, MD, Brewster, N.Y.

Physicians should stick to providing information and let patients decide moral matters for themselves

Regarding "A physician shouldn't have to provide option viewed as morally wrong" (Letters, April 3): The answer to the question ["If one works under the construct that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal, why in the world would you then want to or have to tell patients that it is an option?"] raised by letter writer Steven Mull, MD, of Rockford, Ill., is simple: It is not up to a physician to decide what is morally right or wrong for their patients. We provide information and allow them to make their own decisions.

My question would be: Is it morally right to withhold treatment from all the patients who do things we don't agree with or find morally lacking?

--Stephen Greaney, MD, Vancouver, Wash.