Request for a doctor

 

I am seeking a doctor, British or overseas, who would be willing to supply me by post, for payment, with medications which are only available on prescription, from time to time.

 

Recently an overseas doctor sent me an offer of Viagra, which I could receive for a certain payment and by signing a statement that I was not suffering from certain conditions.  This was of no use to me, but it appears to be a civilised way to go on.  So I should be grateful to hear from any doctor, in this country or overseas, who would provide me with medications for payment.  I do not think that he should require assurances about my state of health, because it should be my business to find out about risks and side-effects, and to assess them in relation to the importance to me of the medication in question, in view of my priorities and purposes in life. 

 

However, if necessary, I will supply such information in writing.

 

I am an objector to the medical profession, on the terms on which it at present operates, on conscientious grounds, and hence I am unable to get registered with any doctor.

 

An individual should not be deprived of his liberty to make the best decisions he can about what is in his interests, evaluating the many uncertainties in the situation, and his own priorities, as best he can.  This is, or should be, the basic principle of morality. 

 

In a moral society, doctors should provide information and suggestions, possibly their own opinions based on their past experience, but never decisions.  It is deplorable that one should be forced to apply to a doctor for permission to purchase medication and skilled treatment.  It is even more deplorable that one should be forced to meet the person to whom one is applying face to face if he demands this, whether or not one considers it necessary or desirable oneself. 

 

It is placing one in an abusive relationship to a doctor to have to apply to him for a prescription; it is even more abusive to be forced to meet him and be examined by him against one’s will.  If I am forced to have an interview with a doctor in order to ask for information or medication that I want to have, I want it to be clear that I am meeting him against my will and under protest, in compliance with an unjust law. 

 

It is abusive to submit to being examined by a doctor against one’s will.  This is being forced to behave as if you wanted him to have additional information, when actually one does not want him to be making decisions about things which concern one at all.  It is also depriving one of the right to exercise one’s own judgement about his efficiency, intelligence, and motivation.

 

If a doctor examines one against one’s will, this is particularly abusive, because one does not know that information he is obtaining or what conclusions, and on what grounds, he is drawing from it.  So one cannot even theoretically argue with him about the validity of his conclusions and point out other factors that would be relevant (not that it would do one any good if one could, because he is the one with the power of decision.)

 

Answering a doctor’s questions, which he may dishonestly present as casual social interaction, is also abusive, although it is less obvious why this is so.  In this case, at least you know what the information is with which you are providing him, but you still do not know what conclusions he is drawing from it and cannot contest them (not, as before, that it would do you much good if you could.)

 

One is forced to register with a specific doctor, who then becomes one’s physiological slavemaster.  One can seek information and medication only from him, instead of applying for them to any doctor and using one’s own judgement about whose opinions one prefers.  This is obviously an atrocious state of affairs and I have been unable to get registered with any doctor who will accept me as a ‘patient’/client/customer/victim.

 

Clearly what one wants, as a conscientious objector to this system, is to define one’s own position in advance.  One needs to state one’s own abhorrence of the situation, the fact that if one is forced to meet him at his command it will be against one’s will and under protest, and that if he wishes one to submit to examination or answer questions this must be clearly stated in advance, as must whether this is a condition of one having any possibility of receiving the medication one is asking for.  It must also be clearly understood in advance that, even if he is making it a condition, one may very well refuse to submit to examination or to answer questions.

 

Even being forced to meet him in person is a form of abuse, since it could be regarded as an examination.  One cannot know what information he thinks he is acquiring merely from inspecting one’s physical appearance.  So before meeting a doctor one needs to have it made clear whether the meeting is a necessary condition of having any chance of receiving the medication one requests.  And one may well decline to meet him, even if it is, because one judges the penalty as being too great.

 

These things need to be defined in writing before one has anything to do with a doctor, but as soon as this is made clear they profess themselves unavailable and suggest that you telephone or meet some other doctor, so that you can be placed in a distorting social situation in which it will be extremely difficult to define your position, theirs being supposed to require no definition.

 

There is a distinct imbalance in the situation.  No-one can get medication except with the permission of some member of the medical profession, but no member of the medical profession need accept any particular person as a client (no reasons needing to be given).  So it is perfectly possible for someone to find himself unable to get a doctor at all, as I am.  And what is more likely, after all, since any expression of ones views on the medical profession is likely to lead to one being rejected and told to get another doctor.  (And this time, don’t forget to lick his boots.)

 

Since doctors represent the sole channel by means of which the population at large can obtain any of the prohibited treatments or pharmaceuticals, one might have supposed that doctors would feel some responsibility for making their services available even to those who regard them with a healthy scepticism.  They are the only providers of these services to the whole of the population, whatever their individual characteristics might be, and some people have the characteristic of regarding this situation as an immoral and unacceptable one.  Are they therefore to be deprived of any possibility of medication, information, or treatment?  Or is it regarded as an acceptable condition that they should be forced to conceal their position and interact with their medical suppliers on terms of social dishonesty and concealment (which, in itself, might be very bad for their health).

 

It would also appear to me immoral for a doctor to make a certain medication conditional on his victim agreeing to submit to examination, or to undergo a certain test, which involves the victim in loss of freedom to use his time as he sees best, and exposure to immoral and potentially dangerous hospital conditions.  Since doctors are supposedly responsible for providing all medical goods to the population, I would have supposed that they should feel responsible to providing what appears to be, at their best guess on the information they have available, in the best interests of the victim.

 

If the victim happens to be a person whose individual characteristics include an objection to being examined against his will by a doctor who is exercising immoral power over him, I would have thought it was the doctor’s responsibility to make the best statistical decision he can on the information available to him about what is in the victim’s best interests (since he is in the immoral position of making a decision at all).  Otherwise individuals with certain personality characteristics will be deprived of what is likely to be in their best interests, apart from being what they want to have.

 

The question of what is in someone’s ‘best interests’ is, of course, highly debatable, and no-one should be forced to submit to the decision of another person about what it is.

 

But, in practice, it is observed that doctors have no inhibitions about rejecting potential victims who show any signs of a critical attitude towards the medical profession, nor about depriving of medication those who refuse to submit to examination and tests.  This demonstrates what might have been suspected, that they actually have no sense of responsibility towards their victims.  In fact, there is no reason to think that they have, except that their victims are required by law to treat them as if they trusted them and regarded them as responsible persons. 

 

My attitudes being what they are I have found it impossible to have a doctor for many years.

 

Please email me if you are a doctor and are prepared to provide medication under the conditions described above.

 

cg@celiagreen.com