A doctor refusing to treat a patient because of her religion would be violating the ethics of the profession and the oath taken by doctors, several senior doctors said on Sunday.
A public health expert said that the refusal by a gynaecologist to treat a Muslim patient can be challenged on multiple grounds: it violates the Constitution, goes against the ethics of the medical profession, and is antithetical to what Hinduism preaches.
A 27-year-old Muslim woman from Maheshtala, in the south-western fringes of Calcutta, was allegedly abused and refused treatment by a gynaecologist whom the woman was visiting for the fifth check-up. The woman’s husband has alleged that the doctor said that people from his wife’s religion were killing people from her (the doctor’s) religion and she would not treat any “Mohammedan” patient.
“The medical community in India, and Bengal, should protest even one instance of communal hatred by any doctor,” said Abhijit Chowdhury, a hepatologist who has worked in Bengal’s public healthcare system for several decades.
On Sunday, the Indian Medical Association, Bengal chapter, issued an appeal to all doctors urging them not to discriminate against any patient because of their “background or religion”.
“Doctors have to take an oath that they will treat anyone in distress, that they will not cause harm to any patient. But when someone refuses to treat a pregnant woman because of her religion, the doctor is indirectly harming the patient. This goes against the ethics of the profession and the oath taken by doctors,” said Chowdhury.
He mentioned that once a woman with liver disease, who was in police custody in a bomb explosion case in Bengal, was brought to him for treatment. “I could not have refused her. She was in distress, and the police had brought her to me, thinking I could heal her,” Chowdhury added.
He referred to an incident around 2010 that the British Medical Journal (BMJ) had also reported. A Jew surgeon had refused to operate on a German with the swastika tattoo in his hand, identifying the patient as someone with Nazi sympathies. Many doctors had demanded that the Jewish surgeon be reprimanded.
A doctor with a leading private hospital in Calcutta said the gynaecologist’s refusal was “absolutely unacceptable”.
“A doctor has a right to not treat a non-emergency patient only if the patient or the family has abused, misbehaved or threatened the doctor. If the same patient has an emergency condition, doctors must carry out their duty. But refusing someone for religion or background cannot be justified under any circumstances,” said the doctor.
The woman’s husband, who has filed complaints with the Maheshtala police station and the state medical council, told Metro that the family only expected an honest apology from the doctor.
“We want no harm to her, at the same my wife is in trauma for the behaviour she faced. Our three-year-old daughter was there when the doctor said she would not treat a Muslim patient,” he said. “We would not have gone to the police or the medical council if she tendered an apology,” he said.
The doctor has refuted the allegations. She has told Metro that she is being
defamed.
“Eighty per cent of my patients are Muslims. Will I say something that hurts me the most? I have also filed a complaint at Parnasree police station that I am being defamed,” the gynaecologist said.