This is a prima facie pernicious article founded on opinions and views and not underpinned, in any shape or form, by authentic and verifiable facts that stand up to scrutiny of any level.

I am firmly of the view that a doctor who lacks a moral and ethical compass and is not directed by scrupulous impulses might ultimately represent a threat to the holistic and thorough care of a patient. An unrestrained doctor may well lack an acute sense of proportion and reason, and will not be averse to sanctioning procedures that may be considered unwarranted. However, a doctor guided by his or her principles is likely to be circumspect and thoughtful, devising the best possible care.

The key is to assimilate ones moral principles with an unwavering duty of care. It can enhance patient care. It is imperative to have faith in a doctor's professionalism to carry out their duty with due diligence and meticulousness, even if it is seemingly in conflict with a doctors moral position.

Shahib Ali, London, UK

I've never had a problem with doctors, or any other trained medical professional. The problems arise from their receptionists, and the glorified shelf stackers in Boots who all think they've suddenly become surgeon general.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

What is so surprising if GP's can't stand the sight of a waiting room largely full of professional loafers and "self-abusers", people who spend their whole lives eating junk and taking no exercise! There is a sick belief amongst millions that their health is someone else's responsibility...just queue up for that little prescription note, and all will be well, until next week.

I don't know if religion, ethnicity or gender are really big issues or not, but have a peek round the door of your local GP's waiting room today...you'll probably see plently of reaons why your Doctor deserves a Medal for endurance.

John Robinson, Isle of Dogs, UK

I don't think you can categorise someone wanting to wear a small cross necklace at work as 'militantly religous'. The argument could be turned on it's head with BA being militantly anti-religious. Why make such a fuss about a necklace?

The issue about wearing full face veils is a different matter as it impacts face to face communication. The points being raised about whose rights come first are important ones, but put the issues into perspective please. If I talk to a patient at work I don't think my choice of necklace will impede their rights, but denying them treatment I don't agree with may well have that effect.

yes I wear a necklace,so what?, Leeds,

My Dad a widely respected GP practised strictly according to the ethics of medical profession.
Between a doctor and a patient a moral code is the governing factor.
Color ,race, nationality,religion,status and other man made factors have no place in practise.
On the other side patients must concern themselves with the remedy,treatment or procedure and leave every thing in the hands of the doctor and trust his/hers judgement for the purpose of getting cured of the malady.
It is also important to have complete transparency so that there is no place for any kind of misunderstanding at any point of time.This is in the best interest of both the doctor as well as the patient.There must not be any space for doubts of any kind.

Vijay Banga, New Delhi, India

More examples of "Minority Rules"

John Macleod, Lochmaddy, Scotland

Dear Sir,
We have a lot of warm, very wet land now in the UK,and there may well be land that people will decide not to rebuild on in the future. Given that plants are natural converters of CO2 to oxygen, could we not have a planting spree of whatever plant/ tree/ shrub is deemed most "productive" at this natural process in order to do something practical about global warming. Even a 0.001% shift from CO 2 to oxygen would positively effect the inheritence left for future generations.

Catherine Doyle, Chester, Cheshire

Very disturbing. It is a great shame that doctors are allowing their moral perspectives to infect, and I use that word deliberately, their professional lives. Doctors, like other professionals, should behave ethically and a profession can define ethical standards. Our moral universe is and should be an internal phenomenon and should only be manifest externally by our own standards of behaviour. A doctor may feel that a course of action undertaken by a patient is immoral but if it is legal then the doctor is ethically bound to facilitate it - not only not impede it.
In short, it is unethical to impose your morality on others. A poor understanding of the difference between ethics and morality is all too common.

James , Canberra, Australia.

GPs are mostly quite a tolerant group. The basic deal is that the GP cannot impose their morality over patients and likewise patients cannot impose their morality over GPs.

Mostly GPs and patients end up agreeing on sensible strategies. Sometimes quickly passing the problem to a colleague is the best way of dealing with it keeping honour intact on both sides.

Dr Peter Davies, Halifax, West Yorkshire

The odd – one uses the word advisedly – writer for the Times does behave indecently toward religion from time to time and of course Ms Reid is entitled to her opinions.
To put Ms Reid in the picture - my understanding is that Jehovahs Wiotnesses have refused blood transfusions for a minimum of 60 years and they do not put any blame on the medical proffesion should they suffer because of a lack of blood.

John Higham, Notts,

The words stable doors and horse come to mind. Anyone with a modicum of nous would have anticipated this problem. It was rather like trusting prisoners with the keys to their cells.

Graham Voisey, Brixham, Devonshire

If you require medical staff to become complicit in acts to which they have a conscientious objection (and many would see a direct referral as facilitating and therefore complicit) then you oblige such people to leave the medical professions.

Perhaps this is what you want. That way you will always get your way - that is provided you can get access to a considerably depleted and, I would argue, morally impoverished service.

But what about those who want access to like-minded doctors? The gynaecological profession, whatever you may believe, has long been all but closed to pro-life medics. In my childbearing phase, and in particular when I was diagnosed with a miscarriage, the experience was made much worse when decisions had to be made because I did not have access to a like-minded gynaecologist. But I guess my needs don't matter if I am in a minority.

In a civilised society minority (if that is what they are) views are respected and accommodated for all our sakes.

Pauline Gately, Weybridge,

"Doctors should proceed on the basis of the child’s best interests, and this means taking into account religious beliefs".
Who's beliefs are you referring to in this statement? How can children have a religious belief when they have not yet learned to read or write or understand speech?
Children don't have religious beliefs, only those superstitions foisted on them by their parents.

Al, weybridge,

"the new advice states that conscientious objectors – for all termination, gender and IVF issues – do not have to refer the patient directly to another doctor."

I'd like to conscientiously object to funding an national health service which supports such institutionalised discrimination. Oh, but I can't, can I? Because the money is simply seized from me. Creating an obligation to pay for a service that I may be unable to use.

Isn't that fraud? Charging for something you have no intention of providing?

KL, Cambs, UK

I greatly fear that this article is long load of waffle in justification of religious persecution of Christians.

Roger Pearse, Ipswich, Suffolk

It should be clear that any doctor practising in the UK, who seeks to deny their patients treatment based on personal beliefs, is not acting in the best interests of the patient... and we should question whether we want this sort of 'professional' working in our public sector.

There are innumerable issues over which a 'conscientious objector' doctor object; veils, crosses, sexuality, gender, leather shoes, abortions, fertitlity treatmeant, eating habits, smoking, drinking of alcohol...

Access to services should not be dependent on the GP's personal culture, but on what the GMC and NICE have enshrined as a legal medical service.

Alex McGregor, Plymouth, UK

Who is this Melanie Reid? On occasions such as this we should know more about where the purveyor of these dilemmas is coming from.
Having been a family doctor for 35 years before retiring I have been very conscious of many of the difficulties and unhappy about the stance the GMC and others have takenon different issues. For example, though parents are supposed to be responsible for their children there is now official direction that information parents ought to have about their youngsters has to be kept from them: consequently the parent cannot function properrly.

Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,

You seem to confuse the right to a service that is needed on purely medical grounds with options that people may choose for a variety of reasons. Abortion is a choice unless the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy (which is mercifully rare). Sexual (gender is a property of nouns not of people) reassignment is also a choice. Offering a life-saving operation or treatment for a chronic condition is surely what we have a right to expect of our NHS, since these are hardly 'life-style choices'.

T H Nathanson, Ipswich,

"in an age where conscientious-objector doctors are growing in number"

what? any evidence?

Ross, London,

An issue that many doctors have, and one that is overlooked, is that as the law stands at present, many terminations carried out are in fact illegal according to a strict interpretation of the law. At present I have to sign a form that states that continuation of the pregnancy would cause greater mental or physical harm to the mother than termination. How can I know whether this is this case? It is time the law was clarified. If society wants termination on demand then parliament needs to legislate for it and stop putting doctors in the invidious position of having to having to decide whether abortion is in a woman's best interests. It is up to the woman concerned to make that decision and take responsibility for it.

C McRae, Edinburgh,