Let's start the new year off with a controversy. We YOU docs have never shied away from letting you know how we feel. Today is no exception. The newest controversy is the "right of conscience rule," which the Washington Post summed up in this headline: "Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs."

Basically, the Bush administration issued this rule to protect health care workers who won't perform services that don't fit their personal beliefs. It also cuts off federal funding to entities that don't allow their health care employees to refuse to provide care. The rule takes effect before the current administration ends.

To us, this rule is the antithesis of the "serving master" concept that medical care is based on. As docs, we are supposed to serve you. We have studied hard and hold ourselves as masters (although we are not all-knowing and bring in colleagues to help). If we feel we cannot do what you need for our own religious reasons, we feel we have an obligation to find you another qualified doc who can.

Our job is not to tell you to get lost, or say that you've come to the wrong docs, or that we won't honor your beliefs because ours trump yours. In our minds and practices, we are subservient to you.

Here's an example: Suppose you are a Jehovah's Witness and need your heart's mitral valve repaired. Any blood transfusion is against your religious beliefs. We believe that we need to inform you of the following options and their risks (we're simplifying them for this column's sake):

We can try to do it without transfusion. If we fail, let your God and you have peace, even if you die. (Let's make it a little less complicated and suppose no one is absolutely dependent on you for their survival.) We would describe when and where bleeding could occur during the operation, and suggest medications and lifestyle changes to build your tolerance in advance to such blood loss.

We can persuade you to accept blood-transfusion alternatives, as long as the blood doesn't lose contact with your body.

If we feel these options are too risky, we can persuade you to bring in your religious elders and discuss accepting a transfusion this one time.

We can find you another excellent team that will do the surgery according to your wishes.

We feel passionately that our task is to inform you of your options (using images as well as words). But once you've been fully informed, we follow your choice. But this new rule seems to abrogate the health care code that asserts that doctors serve you.

There's another side to this issue: emergencies. That's when the rubber hits the road. Emergencies are always exceptions. We believe no health care provider (not doctors, nurses, pharmacists, no one) has the right to refuse to perform a vital service (or refuse to dispense a time-critical drug) when there's no time to provide an alternative. It's our duty to serve you, even if we incur personal risk or a disruption of our belief systems. After all, we treat infectious diseases at our own peril, but that's the bargain we make with society - and with you - for the privilege of doing what we do.

We hope you believe that your docs and health professionals and institutions are "serving masters" to you - honoring your wishes after you have been informed of alternatives. We've occasionally been convinced that we were wrong (1988 was the last time, we think), so let us know your thoughts.

The You Docs - Mike Roizen and Mehmet Oz - are authors of the best-selling "You: Being Beautiful." To submit questions and for more info, go to www.RealAge.com.