Well it seems from that article that doctors who do that are getting sued and it implies they aren't winning.

Private practice doctors can turn down patients for insurance reasons (as can all doctors I think) and the whole abortion thing is a bit different. Aren't their specialized doctors to do that.

As far as not assigning prescriptions to gays and lesbians for religious reasons that is completely absurd. Well they are going to get sued. And probably lose every single time.

Those doctors are just a walking liability.

Like I said before, if you decide to be a doctor, you are agreeing to help people regardless of their status and who they are. Denying someone because of your religious beliefs is wrong and should probably be considered murder or assault if people get hurt because of it. If I was a doctor and a Satanist showed up in the ER with a wooden spike through his chest, I'd do everything I could to save him. Same with an Atheist, Pagan, Budhist, Muslim, Jew, etc.

This is one of the reasons I dislike strong Christian folk, because they simply can't care for everyone (which, ironically, is the cornerstone of the Christian religion!).

It is the medical community's responsibility to provide care for someone who is ignorant enough to believe that God is going to heal them no matter what.

I know this is a problem with some Jehovah's Witnesses. They sometimes refuse medical care because they believe it is always God's will for them to be healthy and alive. I actually know of a case where a young girl needed a blood transfusion, but her parents refused treatment because they thought that God was going to heal their daughter. I believe that the doctors intervened to save her but it's been a while since I've read about it.

I don't think a doctor should withhold treatment for religious reasons. Then again, I don't think anyone should have religious reasons to deny someone medical treatment in the first place. Now what constitutes "treatment" is something of a matter of opinion, and a doctor may sometimes have to make difficult choices about what the best way to treat someone is. In these cases, I would still hope that the doctor wasn't following some authoritarian religious mandate to make his/her decision, but the thought of them doing as much doesn't necessarily make my stomach turn.

What about someone making a proxy decision for the patient who then denies medical treatment?

If you've got a situation where there's a choice between two methods that aim at the same result, and one is more effective at achieving that result, then it would seem indefensible to go with the less effective method. If only things were so simply. Prayer is cheaper than modern medicine, and doesn't require putting yourself or someone else in the care of a doctor who uses healing methods you may not understand. We fear the unknown, and those that fear the possibility of genetic engineering as a preventative treatment aren't fundamentally different than those with similar attitudes to familiar modern medical practices.

We know that prayer isn't as effective as modern medicine at saving peoples lives, but it does have a measurable positive effect in certain situations because of the placebo effect. People who pray for their children as opposed to getting them proper medical treatment may be making a rational choice based upon what they know, but I think it's a terrible choice (which answers your question). To me it seems like a choice made out of cowardice, ignorance, and greed; and not so much out of any confidence in magic and providence.

Well, this is a matter of pure assumption... I assume that prayer can completely heal someone (but not always), but I also know that modern medicine is a much more practical course.

The Bible treats this topic with a simple approach: use common sense. Before asking for anything in prayer, do what you can to obtain it without the need for divine intervention. Do not test the Lord thy God.

In summary, if you are sick, don't forsake practical medical treatment in favor of prayer alone. The best thing to do would be to seek treatment and pray only if this treatment is not helping. Or, pray and seek medical treatment simultaneously. Just don't rely on only one or the other.

Every statement can be said to rest on assumptions. Our reasons for thinking something have to come to an end somewhere, after all. That doesn't mean that every proposition is equally likely to be the case, though, as some assumptions are demonstrably safer than others. It makes more sense for me to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow, than for me to assume that it's being pulled through the sky by a team of magical horses.

I'm just saying, is all...

When and under what conditions can prayer "completely heal someone?"

When can a doctor refuse to treat a person due to the religious affiliation of the doctor?

Anytime the doctor wants. Unless I am mistaken, this is the US and people have freedom to choose. Those who don't like the decision of that doctor can find someone new. Also a part of the freedoms in this country.

When can a person (parent) refuse treatment for another (spouse/child)?

Anytime they want. Again, it is freedom. And while sad, freedom reigns. Sad at times, yes. But society should NEVER overrule a parent unless it is direct abuse coming from parent to child/spouse.

I don't like reading how a JW refuses a blood transfusion that may save their child. But it is still religious freedom, and their choice as a parent. In that situation, a parents rights overrule society.