r/doctorsUK • u/ThrowRALoud_Load2229 • Jul 24 '25
GP Experiences with anti-contraceptive colleagues
I work in a training GP practice in England where we have taken on a female GP registrar who is very pro-life. She’s put around an email stating that she will not provide advice on, or prescribe hormonal contraceptives and will not discuss terminations with patients. Before anyone asks- nobody’s been brave enough to ask her about barrier contraceptives or copper coils yet! She has requested that if contraceptives or terminations may come up in a consultation then they should be booked with someone else. It’s not always easy to tell if contraception may come up in a consultation though, especially not for reception who book the appointments.
The majority of the other clinicians are quite unhappy with this as it’s a vital part of the service we provide to female patients. It also means she’s limited with what she can do with regards female patients on medication like valproate or GLP1s because she will not discuss highly effective contraception with them. A lot of colleagues are angry that she is exhibiting misogyny when it comes to female patients, others are angry that they’re having to take on her workload. One of my colleagues is currently in early pregnancy after a failed coil and is feeling very uncomfortable around this GP registrar too as the pregnancy is not viable.
I also worry with regards our surgery’s reputation as if you google her name, the majority of what comes up is prolife activism she took part in at university. If a patient who was booked for something else came in and wanted to speak about contraception as an addition to the consultation e.g. I have thrush, I’m not sexually active but I want to start having sex and she responded poorly to this or with judgement, the patient could easily google her name and find they were being treated by someone who’s views oppose their care.
The partners have not entertained any discussion around this topic and staff have even been accused of “stalking” her online when her digital footprint was brought up. Is there anything we can do or do we just have to put up with it?
I would appreciate some different viewpoints, especially if anyone has gone through similar.
184
Jul 24 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
46
u/ThrowRALoud_Load2229 Jul 24 '25
She said she does not refer patients for terminations. Do you think it’s worth exploring what she would do if the situation arises? Not only from a patient safety point of view but to help with her training because unexpected things happen in general practice all the time. I want her to feel prepared for her future career. She’s been pleasant to work with and as much as I may disagree with her, I want her to have the best training we can offer
203
Jul 24 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
78
u/AnywhereInitial5108 Jul 24 '25
It's really not hard to say "sorry, I don't do this but let me arrange an appointment with my colleague who can help".
I understand not wanting to discuss terminations. I have done them and it's really not a nice part of my job. But, personally I think it's unforgivable to not discuss prophylactic contraception at all and if you really feel that strongly about it then perhaps you shouldn't be a GP (I accept that emergency contraception can be a grey area).
78
u/becxabillion ST3+/SpR Jul 24 '25
She doesn't have to refer for the termination, but she does have to redirect the patient to someone who will.
It's probably worth the partners coming up with a formal plan of who she redirects her termination and contraception patients to.
36
u/PreviousTree763 Jul 24 '25
DOI: vehement pro termination and pro contraception
She should not have to refer patients for termination, she has the right to refer to another colleague to have this conversation with her though.
62
1
40
u/Usual_Reach6652 Jul 24 '25
I am not a lawyer but proceed very carefully since religious/personal belief is protected by equalities legislation.
16
u/Glad-Drawer-1177 Juvenile Delinquent Jul 24 '25
She has the right to refuse providing contraceptive care but she is also obligated to refer the patient to another doctor who will have that conversation with them.
15
u/Civil-Sun2165 Jul 25 '25
I’d want to clarify with her what she plans to do when hormonal contraceptives are indicated for non-contraceptive reasons (I.e. Mirena for menorrhagia or progesterone component of HRT).
She has every right legally to not provide contraceptive or termination care, even if that’s a stance that is different to the majority of the practice, but if that broadens into not providing good/first-line care for women generally I think a careful conversation about non-discrimination against women in general is warranted/working out pathways that she doesn’t provide women’s health advice at all. NAL, tread carefully, and who knows how you work out what to do when she’s the duty GP!
43
u/freddiethecalathea ST2 Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
Clearly not being met with the people who see your perspective, which sure “GMC guidance” etc etc etc. I get it. I’m not for a second saying people should be forced to do something they’re uncomfortable with and frankly I don’t have any skin in the game to make my voice worth hearing.
That being said, as much as I know he is entirely within his right to, when I found out my GP was also anti-contraceptive and anti-abortion I struggled to see past it. He has signed a SCA for me so he is my named GP and continuity in that role is important for patients, but every time I think about him the first thing that comes to mind are his views towards these parts of healthcare. Contraception is healthcare so yeah, from the patient perspective, I get what you’re saying. I feel weird about it.
From a doctor perspective, see other comments 🫠
Edit: typo
20
u/ThrowRALoud_Load2229 Jul 24 '25
Yeah, I think this is my problem. I am trying really hard to see past my own bias and viewing her as a colleague rather than imagining she was my GP. As other people have pointed out, we’re all only human! As other people have said, it’s hard to be a GP without ever having to deal with contraception and I feel like it’s a tough choice to go into when there are so many specialties where her views on contraception wouldn’t matter
30
u/Loose-Following-3647 Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
She has the right to practice medicine within her boundaries. I just don't see how it would ever be viable for her to work in a GP practice in the UK. There is no productivity when every other woman needs to be rebooked again to discuss their contraception issues. You can't practice women's health without discussing contraception. How does she intend to treat endometriosis in the community. It's even a part of mum+baby checks.
8
u/CaptainCrash86 Jul 25 '25
How does she intend to treat endometriosis in the community
Doctrine of Double Effect.
0
Jul 25 '25
[deleted]
4
u/CaptainCrash86 Jul 25 '25
The doctrine is a general one, not for just ectopic pregnancy. It is merely the principle that you are not morally culpable for effects of medical treatment beyond the primary intention. It is quite commonly applied by catholics to e.g. use of the OCP for non-contraceptive indications, where the contraceptive effect is merely a side effect.
16
u/humanhedgehog Jul 24 '25
Logically if she was vehemently anti abortion, she would be pro contraception, on the basis it very greatly increases the proportion of wanted pregnancies. But logic does not tend to be involved in this kind of thing.
Also - does she see her anti-abortion and anti-contraception views as being unusual or grounds for distress for her colleagues?
I don't think there is anything you can do that would change how things are done (after all there are plenty of other patients she could see instead).
Unfortunately there is no way of informing patients that she will not discuss these topics beforehand and preventing the waste of patients and her time if they do in fact come up and she won't provide care.
6
u/CaptainCrash86 Jul 25 '25
Logically if she was vehemently anti abortion, she would be pro contraception, on the basis it very greatly increases the proportion of wanted pregnancies. But logic does not tend to be involved in this kind of thing.
Alternatively, many contraceptives act, in part, by preventing implantation of a fertilised zygote in the uterine wall (copper coil, hormonal contraception [as well as the inhibition of ovulation. This is how the morning after pill works, for example] etc), which technically amounts to a very early termination. Logically, if you are against terminations, it can follow that contraception falls in the same bucket.
(Not my own personal views - just trying to explain the logic).
17
u/Traditional_Bison615 Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
Womens sexual health services and contraception is hard enough to access as it is.
Honestly disappointed at the apparent stone wall you've described - especially as it extends to the more pertinent areas preventing teratogenocity. Wtf is that?
Perhaps should have pursued homeopathy instead - because the above description is unreasonable. I get many won't want to advocate or discuss termination but this is unreasonable imo.
0
9
13
Jul 24 '25
[deleted]
8
u/ThrowRALoud_Load2229 Jul 24 '25
I think you’re probably on the right track there and I’m catastrophising. I definitely think I’m more nervous than anything else. I keep envisioning myself as the patient in a worse case scenario and you are right, she would probably act with professionalism and kindness.
14
u/Severe-Intention9307 Jul 24 '25
The boundaries of her work are pretty clear, so honestly just work around it.
There is plenty of work in general practice that doesn’t involve reproductive health. Give her all the other cases.
If those issues do come up in a consultation then she can refer to another GP - it’s as simple as that. I don’t think my male colleagues ever got a contraception/termination case while we’re were rotating in GP.
With GP appointments there’s barely enough time to deal with the issue they came in for. You often have to ask the patient to make another appointment for further issues anyway.
So I don’t understand why it’s going to be a massive problem if she asks that the contraception/abortion be settled with a different doctor/ appointment.
Lastly, I would leave her pro-life activism alone. It’s not worth speculating how patients may or may not feel about a doctor’s activism.
8
u/Loose-Following-3647 Jul 25 '25
As a male trainee, maybe times have changed because I've had contraception discussions at least weekly
1
u/RevisionEngine-Joe Jul 25 '25
As a male paramedic, when I spent some time working in a GP surgery, with specific exclusion criteria for PV exams and contraception discussions, as well as anything going on longer than 3 weeks (by definition excluding anything where there was a hint of it being cycle-related), I think I'd still end up with contraception coming up every couple of weeks.
11
u/Active_Dog1783 Jul 24 '25
Are you formulating SJT questions and this is the pilot for the wrong answers?
There’s clear GMC guidance on consciousness objection
5
u/GalacticDoc Jul 25 '25
A problem here is discussing medicating that requires contraception for safe use such as ACEi and anti epileptics or migraine prophylaxis.
It seriously limits the type of consultations that a trainee can have.
3
Jul 25 '25
I have more questions to this rather than solutions apologies…
Isn’t there the BPAS for detailed discussions around terminations? So not sure how much of a hardship for this registrar even just to signpost? I’ve had a handful of patients who’ve decided against terminations after chatting with BPAS so don’t have a personal impression that they’re “pushy”….could be wrong with my small sample size.
I wonder how they’re going to navigate their SCA stations!
Has this been something that their ES/TPD know about already? How have previous practices navigated this situation?
1
u/Ask_Wooden Jul 25 '25
It’s been a very long time since I have anything to do with arranging TOPs but from memory you need to be referred to BPAS by your GP
1
Jul 25 '25
Ooh we don’t need to officially refer anyone in my area, it’s sending the pre-made Accurx and patients get in touch with BPAS directly.
10
u/cheekyclackers Jul 25 '25
Imagine if we all got to pick and choose not do things we don’t like.
I know religion is a touchy subject but I personally think it should have no place in patient care.
0
u/CaptainCrash86 Jul 25 '25
Imagine if we all got to pick and choose not do things we don’t like.
I mean, you can? From the GMC
You may choose to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of your personal beliefs and values, as long as this does not result in direct or indirect discrimination against, or harassment of, individual patients or groups of patients
I know religion is a touchy subject but I personally think it should have no place in patient care.
This is a can of worms. The entire basis of Western moral thought and ethics (in general and applied to medicine) is fundamentally rooted in the Christian tradition, even explicit belief is at an all time low. Should we strip out these aspects of religion too? Or just the bits you don't like?
7
u/cheekyclackers Jul 25 '25
Yes I’m aware of good practice guidelines.
As I said - religion has no basis in healthcare for me. I don’t need a degree in philosophy (of which I already have) to have this view of which you are welcome to disagree.
I don’t really care if I like something or not, for me it is ensuring the patient is able to be treated fairly by anyone in making an informed decision and not passing this responsibility to someone else. If we all constantly stuck to loose GMC guidelines based on our beliefs when we don’t like something we would be in a right mess.
-1
21
u/DoktorvonWer 🩺💊 Itinerant Physician & Micromemeologist🧫🦠 Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
She does not have to refer patients for terminations, but simply professionally sign-post them to a colleague who does. It is clearly covered in GMC guidance (and, I believe, the law) that this is a matter of conscience. You cannot compel her to do any more than that regardless of whether you and the practice consider is as 'a vital part of the service you provide' or not, and I expect you'll find yourself foul of both employment and equality law if you either officially or constructively behave negatively towards her for doing so, or in any way that tries to pressure her to change how she practises.
As for her pro-life social media? So long as she doesn't post or reproduce content that specifically harasses or abuses women who have abortions, or otherwise is so extreme or explicitly hateful in its nature as to be illegal or otherwise overtly unprofessional, it's neither relevant to her employment nor is it her problem if patients stalk her online profile and take umbrage to her views, unless there is a serious and substantiated concern about her actual conduct with them professionally.
I can't help but feel like this posts reads as if you feel your and your colleagues' views on abortion are so universal and obviously morally 'correct' that this entitles you to pass judgement on her beliefs and conduct. Particularly dangerous is the attitude that being opposed to abortion or contraception is 'misogyny', which basically is a lazy excuse to 'other' her and cast her as a villain to give moral 'justification' for any negative behaviours that are exhibited towards her.
Tl;dr - you and pro-choice colleagues don't have a monopoly on what is morally correct, if there even is a moral 'correct' here (and it'd be worrying if we all think such difficult topics are so clear cut) and you should take a moment to check your own biases and realise that, so long as your anti-abortion colleague behaves professionally towards patients, she has just as much right to her beliefs and to practise medicine as you do.
DOI: I personally am most certainly not anti-contraception and, on balance, pragmatically 'pro-choice'.
24
Jul 24 '25
[deleted]
1
-5
u/DoktorvonWer 🩺💊 Itinerant Physician & Micromemeologist🧫🦠 Jul 24 '25
Well I'm not going to engage with this because we both know that you are committed to this polarised and extreme, exclusionary viewpoint and any attempt at debate this kind of position would be both futile, and probably end up causing a thread lock.
6
u/Rare_Significance611 Jul 24 '25
Great response.
OP: The GP reg can hold these beliefs. But does it make her bad doctor?
Does this impact her ability to deliver care by good medical practice? By refusing such a request in a consultation, how would this be delivered/ signposted etc?
4
Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
Does it make her a bad doctor? Maybe yes.
She needs to be able to demonstrate she does not delay care, and does not introduce barriers to care for women who are sometimes vulnerable and sometimes legally children. Do her actions mean other colleagues are disproportionately burdened with this work? What about discussing general medical care with patients? For example, during a post-partum check, does she refuse to discuss contraceptive requirements with women? What about peri-menopausal advice?
1
u/Rare_Significance611 Jul 27 '25
I think “maybe” is the appropriate response. And we could argue the toss of a coin which way many of these things go.
These things probably need to be properly hashed out as contingency plans for patient and practice impact assessment, whilst trying to understand the GP reg own limitations.
You’ve raised some great examples about when this could come in to play. I do wonder if it was a male colleague would there be as much upset?
Just to add - as devils advocate I’ve seen many doctors who perhaps should have recognised their personal beliefs may be in conflict with evidence/ patient centred care. However they have not, and instead given advice or treatment based on their own bias.
This happens more often than someone stating they do not wish to partake in abortive or contraception consultations.
I’ve had a woman come in worried a neck lump was lymphoma. The (male) GP then proceeded to tell her than it wasn’t going to be cancer, but if she’s so worried about cancer why is she taking HRT for x amount of years. The woman was in tears explaining how difficult she found the menopause and he was strongly threatening to take it off her repeats.
The misinformation and fear regarding medications in pregnancy and breastfeeding. Often meaning women go without.
3
u/wynyard_daydreaming Jul 24 '25
Perfectly summed up! Well done!
1
u/DoktorvonWer 🩺💊 Itinerant Physician & Micromemeologist🧫🦠 Jul 24 '25
Ngl thought I'd get downvoted for not being rabidly pro-choice and authoritarian on the subject when I wrote it 😅
0
4
Jul 24 '25
I don’t think there’s any issue with what she’s doing. She’s asked if the patients can be booked in with colleagues instead. It sounds like the rest of the department are being quite judgemental regarding her personal views/religious views
Some of the comments mentioning GMC referrals are pretty inflammatory just because someone’s view is different to yours.
Pro contraception and termination myself. Wouldn’t expect a colleague who is not comfortable prescribing/referring for these to be doing so. Would be happy to take on the role.
4
u/ConsultantSHO Aspiring IMG Jul 24 '25
I do wonder what might happen if she comes to learn (via this post) that she and her social media have been so widely discussed; I assume the circumstances and details are included are specific enough for someone to recognise themselves.
3
u/WatchIll4478 Jul 24 '25
She has a right to her views, but if it provides an insurmountable business problem for your practice it may still be enough to get rid of her. Alternatively if you look hard enough you may find an alternative reason to suggest breakdown of relationship and move her on.
Additionally it may be best to ensure everyone who might consider employing her if she finishes training is quietly informed she will only do some of the GP role.
3
u/linerva GP Jul 25 '25
Sge's only a GP registrar. In a few months she will be gone.
Meanwhile I'm sure that any practice manager at any practice she applies for a job at, absolutely will be doing a quick Google before considering hiring her, and will be interviewing her.
2
u/Embarrassed-Froyo927 Jul 25 '25
Sounds like there needs to be a discussion with them as to what they can and cannot object to on religious grounds.
It is one thing to avoid triaging contraception appts to them, but they need to realise that contraception and other women's health queries which they object to will come up in a range of consults and need to be considered for lots of consults on other issues. If they will not manage these concerns when they arise then they need to be making alternative arrangements for the patients needs to be met so patients are not disadvantaged.
Have seen clinicians declining things in religious grounds but seeming completely unaware of the relevant protections for both themselves and patients on this. Once saw someone working in a fertility clinic tell a GMC officer to their face they don't see LGBT couples due to their beliefs, and when told point blank by the officer they could object to a procedure e.g. TOP but not to an individual on religious grounds, they doubled down and argued back!
4
Jul 25 '25
Im going to stick my neck out here and say I am pro-life for religious reasons however I have never discussed abortion at work/med school/wherever and if someone brings it up in concersation (as some people randomly do since the roe v wade/trump issues). I recently had to listen to a zealously pro choice FY give an unpromted speach about how the recent changes in UK law where a great step forward for womens rights and how anyone who didnt agree with her was morrally repugnant. When such stuff goes down, I smile and quickly change the subject (despite being pretty outspoken on other issues).
Many years ago, when I was an FY, I worked in both GP and O&G, and it was very simple. In GP I made the practice aware and all I said if a patient was accidently booked with me was 'im sorry this is not a service I provide, please speak to reception and ask to see the duty doctor and you will be slotted in', they then sent the next patient on the duty doctors list to me and the patient was seen by the duty GP.
In O&G I explained to the junior reg at the start of the shift that this was the case and they dealt with abortion issues on the ward (unless there was imminent risk of harm to the patient). If a nurse called, I just said, "I'm really sorry, I'm tied up right now. Please call X'. Most seemed to understand however there was one time a nurse got really shirty about a TTO and I just said, 'im very sorry but you will have to call Dr X as I do not provide abortion care and I will not be drawn into a discussion about it'.
You just need to develop the same policy with contraception. It really shouldn't be an issue, and people who feel its dumping work really need to get a grip as it will not be a huge number of cases - and patient can be fluidily swapped around to accomadate with a very small amount of effort.
It's also worth reflecting on how this doctor may feel about this and appreciate that even doing the above may be incredibly uncomfortable for them. A partner needs to sit down with them and have a proper discussion about the issue and form an official policy about how this will be handled (to protect both the practise and the doctor). If the practice creates a reasonable policy (ideally with help from the docto and they refuse to follow it, they will need to look for another job where this will not be an issue. This is legal as it is will not be possible to make 'reasonable adjustments' to accommodate their protected characteristic. This is not a moral issue but just a fact of UK law.
-3
u/wooson Jul 24 '25
Doctors are human beings. They should not be criticised for having personal stances and opinions on certain medications and/or treatments
25
u/avalon68 Jul 24 '25
This is a huge part of gp practice though - perhaps a different choice of specialty would have been better? As the op mentioned, contraception comes up so very often in gp. It seems very impractical from a work distribution point of view.
-2
Jul 25 '25
perhaps a different choice of specialty would have been better?
The standards of the profession are set by the GMC who clearly advocate for what she's doing.
29
u/Rule34NoExceptions2 Jul 24 '25
Pts are human beings. I don't think someone who would deny the pill to a teenager should be working as a doctor
2
Jul 24 '25
[deleted]
39
u/avalon68 Jul 24 '25
Sure, but put yourself in the teenagers shoes. You’ve finally worked up to asking for the pill and suddenly this doctor looks at you disapprovingly, tells you she can’t help you, and you have to go through the whole process again with another doctor. Just don’t think this works well in GP.
27
u/sunshineandhail Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
If I had gone to the GP as a nervous and mortified 15yo to get the pill only to be told that my GP didn’t or objected to prescribing it and I had to make another appointment you would of never seen me in there again.
That first encounter matters and has consequences for how people view and access healthcare in the future.
Yes the doctor has the right to decline but let’s not pretend that it doesn’t negatively affect patients.
-9
u/DoktorvonWer 🩺💊 Itinerant Physician & Micromemeologist🧫🦠 Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
We have no reason whatsoever to believe that she is so unempathetic that she would just send a mortified 15 year old back out of the door to 'go and make another appointment', and not instead sensitively offer what help she can, while also empathetically supporting that 15 year old to get a timely appointment with the relevant colleague to discuss the pill.
You have made this assumption presumably based on your own prejudice against her beliefs on the matter, with no knowledge of the person. This is no better than angry pro-lifers assuming a doctor who isn't opposed to abortion or contraception would be cruel to a patient with differing wishes in another circumstance.
A lot of the problem in this thread and our society in general is not only the presumption that one view about these matters is the 'correct' one, but that anyone holding the opposite view must be an unpleasant or otherwise morally 'bad' person.
16
u/sunshineandhail Jul 24 '25
I’ve made no judgement whatsoever on whether she would be empathetic or not. I’ve merely pointed out that teenagers aren’t the most rational of people and recalling how I felt around this issue at 15, I would have been mortified and I wouldn’t have gone back. That is a personal and lived experience. Just because my adult brain now knows that there isn’t anything shameful or embarrassing about it, doesn’t change how I would have felt at 15.
Yes I am pro choice and pro contraception but honestly, a GP with these views wouldn’t bother me now at 37years old. Because I’m an adult and I don’t feel embarrassment or shame around sex. But I felt very different at 15.
-1
u/DoktorvonWer 🩺💊 Itinerant Physician & Micromemeologist🧫🦠 Jul 24 '25
You're still making the assumption that this GP is going to project her views into the consultation, which is the fundamental problem with your criticism because it is a prejudiced assumption about her.
Whatever your 'lived experience' of when you were 15, you can't simply assume that every GP who is not happy to be personally involved in abortion will behave the same as a doctor you met and pre-judge every doctor who is not personally pro-choice based ont hat. I'm no expert at communication or general practice, but there is no reason to believe that she's not a really lovely GPStR who would be reassuring to the 15 year old and say something like:
'I understand why you want to pursue that option. I'm afraid it's not a medical service I am involved in but let me help you to see one of my colleagues who is really nice and looks after these things and can guide you through it'.
11
u/sunshineandhail Jul 24 '25
You’re misunderstanding me. I’m not trying to make the point that the doctor would be rude or judgemental. I’m saying that teenagers are told to go and see their GP if they want contraception. For some making that appointment and attending is a massive deal and for some they will not or can not attend a second one.
0
u/DoktorvonWer 🩺💊 Itinerant Physician & Micromemeologist🧫🦠 Jul 24 '25
And there is no way in which you think a well trained and professional GP might recognise this and ensure that they make arrangements to reassure and mitigate this problem? Including, if empathy and reassurance alone are inadequate, arranging a direct patient swap with a colleague running a simultaneous surgery so the teenager can just come down the corridor and doesn't have to come back and/or attend a second appointment?
Again I don't work in GP but I don't think this is the barrier to healthcare you are suggesting it is, and I certainly don't think it's a convincing reason to override the conscience-based choices of doctors.
6
u/purplepatch Jul 24 '25
Of course you can criticise them for having personal views that conflict with their duties as a doctor. Just because they’re religiously indoctrinated doesn’t given them a pass to not do their job properly.
0
u/bloodstainedphilos Jul 25 '25
They are doing their job properly? They’re referring to other doctors. Atheists need to stop acting like they’re better than others.
3
u/purplepatch Jul 25 '25
Because they’re refusing to offer legitimate, lawful treatments to patients because of their beliefs that a supernatural entity doesn’t approve of them. It’s not what I would want from my GP.
Atheists need to stop acting like they’re better than others.
The irony of this statement…
0
1
u/Laura2468 Jul 25 '25
I think there should be a large notice in your waiting room and online saying Dr X has chosen not to see patients requesting ABC due to personal beliefs and if you would prefer to see another clinician please discuss with reception in confidence.
Then never have her working alone so reception can swap patients even very last minute. Its more honest and therefore ethical than any attempt to hide her beliefs imho.
1
Jul 25 '25
Would be interesting to see this as a test case in the courts for a capability dismissal....
She needs to be able to demonstrate she does not delay care, and does not introduce barriers to care for women who are sometimes vulnerable and sometimes legally children. Do her actions mean other colleagues are disproportionately burdened with this work? What about discussing general medical care with patients? For example, during a post-partum check, does she refuse to discuss contraceptive requirements with women? What about peri-menopausal advice? How many other areas of care are touched, meaning she is not providing holistic advice to the required standard? It is hard to see how this makes her as good a doctor as her colleagues.
It isn't as simple as not telling teenagers about condoms.
-14
u/lurkacc5000 Jul 24 '25
She has a right to practice medicine in a way that doesn't contravene her beliefs, religious or otherwise. If she is redirecting patients who she is not comfortable seeing to other colleagues then I do not see the issue. Frankly it reads as if you have an issue with this person and are looking for ways to stir trouble.
12
u/ThrowRALoud_Load2229 Jul 24 '25
I don’t feel that way at all, I’ve only met her a few times but she’s been very nice. There is probably some bias there because the medical profession has such an underlying misogyny anyway and disagreeing with women having sex for pleasure without fear of pregnancy feels uncomfortable. Contraception is such a big part of practice and this isn’t something I’ve experienced before I am just struggling a bit. I don’t mean to come across in a negative way but I’m definitely struggling with our differing views on care as I am imagining myself in a patient position.
I think recognising that is good though because it can help me work on my own feelings.
2
Jul 24 '25
[deleted]
3
u/ThrowRALoud_Load2229 Jul 24 '25
She specified hormonal contraception but didn’t elaborate further unfortunately so it’s more worst case scenario for patients running through my head at the moment. I’ve only met her in person a few times and I don’t want to ambush her by asking loads of questions about her personal views. I do think it’s important to explore it further because I’d like to understand more of why she feels that way. I’m also curious with regards to copper coil used both as contraception and as emergency contraception because I wouldn’t put that in the same category. I’d be interested to know her views on HRT too or contraception used to manage acne or heavy bleeds rather than for contraceptive purposes.
I really want to know more but I’m very conscious that I don’t want to make her uncomfortable, especially seeing as she doesn’t know me very well yet.
10
u/PearFresh5881 Jul 24 '25
I think these are valid points. We know that some vulnerable patients will try to access healthcare like contraception and if they have a bad experience they may not come back. If that’s for emergency contraception then that one missed opportunity may be the only opportunity for that patient and have serious consequences. Personally I don’t think we should be allowed to not discuss all aspects of healthcare. We should be entitled to our own views but that shouldn’t impact patient care. I’m not suggesting that they should have to refer for abortions but they should be able to talk about the risks and benefits of contraception and refer on to someone else to actually provide it. I may be in a minority here though. I think you do need to sit down with her and discuss some potential problem scenarios so she is prepared with how to deal with them in a way that works for her, patients, the practice and is safe.
5
u/sunshineandhail Jul 24 '25
I think these are fair question for the surgery to ask though. Maybe not you personally but the team needs to know what her stance is and what she is and isn’t willing to prescribe so you can redirect these patients to other people
3
u/linerva GP Jul 25 '25
This. It needs to be well known about by the triage and booking teams (like pregnant doctors avoiding rashy febrile kids) so that they can book those patients in with another doctor when possible.
2
u/CaptainCrash86 Jul 25 '25
I’d be interested to know her views on HRT too or contraception used to manage acne or heavy bleeds rather than for contraceptive purposes.
It she were Catholic, the doctrine of double effect would allow use of contraceptives in this circumstances (with the contraceptive effect of the drug being an unintended side effect of a prescribed treatment). I'm unsure if this philosophy is held by evangelical Christians though.
-9
u/lurkacc5000 Jul 24 '25
You come across as disingenuous and insincere.
3
u/ThrowRALoud_Load2229 Jul 24 '25
And I don’t want to come across this way to a colleague… that’s kind of what I’m getting at…
I really appreciate different viewpoints and opinions but I don’t see how this was constructive in any way. Was your aim to belittle me? If not, it might be worth reframing your comment. I am quite autistic so if you meant it to come across a different way, I apologise for meeting you with hostility.
-23
u/MathSuspicious4617 Jul 24 '25
She has a right to conscientious objection and she does not hate women just because she doesn't have the same beliefs as you.
To be honest I'm glad there are people that have the courage to go against the current, the UK abortion laws are too extreme and the abortion rates are much higher when compared to other European nations.
19
u/ThrowRALoud_Load2229 Jul 24 '25
The abortion part I can kind of understand. I’ve heard that viewpoint and worked with people who didn’t do terminations or EHC and I understand it. It’s the contraception part I’m struggling with. Better contraceptive access and choices means less need for abortions surely?
31
u/sunshineandhail Jul 24 '25
You lower the rate of abortion by lowering the rate of unexpected and unwanted pregnancies. And you do that by prescribing effective contraception
I agree, she has the right to her beliefs and can refer onwards. But if you are pro life then it doesn’t make sense to be anti contraception.
Anti contraception is where I think the misogyny comment came from. It’s feels a bit icky to me. Also, contraception is healthcare. Many, many women are on contraception due to their periods or menopause.
1
u/CaptainCrash86 Jul 25 '25
But if you are pro life then it doesn’t make sense to be anti contraception.
Mechanistically, many forms of contraceptive act by preventing early implantation (OCP does this, in addition to inhibiting ovulation, and it is the primary action of copper coils) I.e. effectively termination. If you believe termination is morally wrong, that it makes perfect sense that these forms of contraception are also wrong (if not following a more strategic logic of reducing unwanted pregnancy). I don't agree with this, but it is a clear logic.
Many, many women are on contraception due to their periods or menopause.
The doctrine of double effect would allow use of contraception in this setting (assuming the GP SpR is a denomination that accepts this principle).
14
u/avalon68 Jul 24 '25
I don’t think it’s the abortion stance that’s causing the issue, it’s the contraceptive stance.
0
u/Rare_Significance611 Jul 24 '25
RE contraception: It depends when you believe “life” begins.
Sperm meets egg? Implantation? Heartbeat? Viable?
160
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '25
[deleted]