I'm think they thought they'd be healing people as opposed to killing children.
And FYI, Christians - Catholic or otherwise, have been in the medical field long before your 'public payroll' existed.
It's not his "public payroll", it's the fact of the situation. If people of faith can't abide performing legal medical procedures they certainly shouldn't be allowed to receive tax money.
And FYI, Heathens, Wiccan or otherwise, have been in the medical field for thousands of years before your "Christianity" existed.
I can see in principle why canada has laws that force doctors to do procedures they *have moral objections to* since the health care is nationalized. Does any body know if this law in Michigan applies to state doctors? It can't really...
I find it objectionable that a doctor would let their *morals* get in the way of providing care, in the same way I found it objectionable that the conservative muslims in saudi arabia allowed those girls to die in that fire last year. Except, the doctors case is worse because these people enjoy the social status of being providers of health.
As mentioned before, a person who thinks that they will refuse care, any care that they can reasonably provide, on any basis should not even consider being a doctor. There is only one example where I believe this rule could be broken and that is with providing the care to someone who refuses to pay for it, but at that point it damned better leave the physician in a *moral* crisis.
I certainly believe that there's a lot to be said for capitalism, but I also believe there's good reason to consider a fair share of the money out there in the world to be community wealth.
It takes more than simple sloganeering like, oh, the way Bush talks about taxes, to explain where I'm coming from about community wealth, but starting from that stance I think there's more than enough community wealth from which to provide for better public access to health care.
As for the main point of this thread: Not only do doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, but they are licensed by the State -- it's perfectly reasonable for the state to impose responsibilities along with privileges like the right to practice medicine. "Conscientious Objector Policy" is one those names like the "Clear Sky Initiative" which allows for dirtier air -- there's nothing conscientious at all about "objecting" to treating a person in need of medical help.
Good post, shetline. Your reasoning fails in the end, though.
In a pluralistic society, there will always be disagreements about what is right and wrong in any sphere of life. Medical care is one of those spheres.
A Catholic believes that handing out condoms is wrong and that abortion is murder. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
As I said before, a free society should not force someone to violate their conscience. If we err, it should be on the side of freedom.
basically, i have come to the point that i am intolerant of intolerance. Sorry to all those catholics out there, but I don't give a damn if your religion says people like kirkland will burn in hell. That is an abismal and closed minded ideology and one that has no place in any time period. sorry, being open minded in my case doesn't mean i have to have an absolute fault tolerance, your views are bigoted and wrong...
So you would agree with legislation to allow a Physician to deny treatment based on money, but not ethics?
No, i expect legislation to say that a patient that has refused to pay for care provided (and has the means to pay) can be justifiably denied care. Morals of a physician are and should be irrelevent. Ethics are something completely different than what this discussion is about...
A Catholic believes that handing out condoms is wrong and that abortion is murder. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
There's a big difference between objecting to performing certain procedures, and objecting to aiding specific patients. If you can object to treating a patient based on any "moral, ethical or religious grounds", a doctor could say "I refuse to prescribe him antibiotics because he's gay" or "I refuse to fix her broken arm because she's a Jew".
Good post, shetline. Your reasoning fails in the end, though.
In a pluralistic society, there will always be disagreements about what is right and wrong in any sphere of life. Medical care is one of those spheres.
A Catholic believes that handing out condoms is wrong and that abortion is murder. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
As I said before, a free society should not force someone to violate their conscience. If we err, it should be on the side of freedom.
In a pluralistic society, there will always be disagreements about what is right and wrong in any sphere of life. One of these spheres is gender roles.
A Muslim cleric believes that woman should not be allowed an education and that the sight of exposed female flesh is an abomination in the eyes of God. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
As you say, a free society should not force someone to violate their conscience. If we err, it should be on the side of freedom.
In a pluralistic society, there will always be disagreements about what is right and wrong in any sphere of life. One of these spheres is gender roles.
A Muslim cleric believes that woman should not be allowed an education and that the sight of exposed female flesh is an abomination in the eyes of God. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
As you say, a free society should not force someone to violate their conscience. If we err, it should be on the side of freedom.
Your attempt at reverse-psychology is cute, but extremely misguided.
In a pluralistic society, the cleric is free to believe what he wants to believe. No action can be forced upon him. The woman is free to believe what she wants to believe. No action can be forced upon her.
In the case of the doctor, he or she is being forced by law to act against the way his/her conscience dictates.
Your attempt at reverse-psycology is cute, but extremely misguided.
In a pluralistic society, the cleric is free to believe what he wants to believe. No action can be forced upon him. The woman is free to believe what she wants to believe. No action can be forced upon her.
In the case of the doctor, he or she is being forced by law to act against the way his/her conscience dictates.
Ah, but what if the Muslim is not a cleric, but a police officer? Now his beliefs are being abused by what the job requires of him, i.e., rendering aid and assistance to single, unescorted women who haven't the decency to cover their flesh. Why should he be obliged to go against his creed? Shouldn't he be a "special" kind of policeman who gets to pick and choose the services he will perform, according to his beliefs?
If you decide to become a doctor, be a doctor, not a small minded POS.
:
Exactly. If I were a police officer I would be obliged to intervene. Personally I think I'd be obliged to intervene as a common-or-garden citizen, but hey.
Ah, but what if the Muslim is not a cleric, but a police officer? Now his beliefs are being abused by what the job requires of him, i.e., rendering aid and assistance to single, unescorted women who haven't the decency to cover their flesh. Why should he be obliged to go against his creed? Shouldn't he be a "special" kind of policeman who gets to pick and choose the services he will perform, according to his beliefs?
If the primary requirement of a job goes against one's core values, I think it is indeed reasonable to assume that people would avoid that choice of profession.
However, we're not dealing with people who trained to be abortionists or abortion support personnel and then suddenly asked to be relieved of the job because of their faith. Many people trained in the medical field back when abortion was illegal. Many train today to work in health care fields unrelated to abortion, only to be transferred to a unit due to scarce personnel. Some health care professionals are immigrants from countries where it's still illegal.
Accommodations can be made. To say that people who don't believe in abortion, handing out condoms to minors or handing out needles to addicts should be legally banned from working in the health care field is a tad extreme.
To say that people who don't believe in abortion, handing out condoms to minors or handing out needles to addicts should be legally banned from working in the health care field is a tad extreme.
I'd suggest that they just quit. It's much easier.
Hold it. No, they don't. And folks have a right to refuse to provide medical services for WHATEVER reason. And they shouldn't be sued for refusing to provide medical services.
The DISGUSTING thing here is that RELIGIOUS folks are behind something that turns away those in need. Absolutely disgusting.
If you can object to treating a patient based on any "moral, ethical or religious grounds", a doctor could say "I refuse to prescribe him antibiotics because he's gay" or "I refuse to fix her broken arm because she's a Jew".
Welcome to America, land of the free. Or not.
If someone chooses to NOT provide service BECAUSE they're a f*cking bigotted racist a$$hole, you have the inalienable right to point a finger and cry "A$$hole! at them." But they certainly should have the right to pick who they help.
If someone chooses to NOT provide service BECAUSE they're a f*cking bigotted racist a$$hole, you have the inalienable right to point a finger and cry "A$$hole! at them." But they certainly should have the right to pick who they help.
Not if that person is licenced by the state. As a society, we certainly should have a right to deny licences on ethical grounds, and force such a person to either practice medicine without prejudice, or not at all. The doctor may not be obligated in any absolute sense to help gays or jews, but neither is the state obligated in any absolute sense to issue that particular doctor a license to practice.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
...you sure as **** should be healthy in this pursuit...so American doctors better treat every American...and people anywhere. They're ****ing physicians!
To hell with this "law". To hell with the doctors or physicians who "obey" them.
Comments
Originally posted by Frank777
I'm think they thought they'd be healing people as opposed to killing children.
And FYI, Christians - Catholic or otherwise, have been in the medical field long before your 'public payroll' existed.
It's not his "public payroll", it's the fact of the situation. If people of faith can't abide performing legal medical procedures they certainly shouldn't be allowed to receive tax money.
And FYI, Heathens, Wiccan or otherwise, have been in the medical field for thousands of years before your "Christianity" existed.
I find it objectionable that a doctor would let their *morals* get in the way of providing care, in the same way I found it objectionable that the conservative muslims in saudi arabia allowed those girls to die in that fire last year. Except, the doctors case is worse because these people enjoy the social status of being providers of health.
As mentioned before, a person who thinks that they will refuse care, any care that they can reasonably provide, on any basis should not even consider being a doctor. There is only one example where I believe this rule could be broken and that is with providing the care to someone who refuses to pay for it, but at that point it damned better leave the physician in a *moral* crisis.
Originally posted by shetline
I certainly believe that there's a lot to be said for capitalism, but I also believe there's good reason to consider a fair share of the money out there in the world to be community wealth.
I started a thread with a long, long, explanation of my stance on "Wealth, taxes, ownership" a little over a week ago. I guess I wasn't provocative enough (read: flame baiting enough) or I would have gotten more responses.
It takes more than simple sloganeering like, oh, the way Bush talks about taxes, to explain where I'm coming from about community wealth, but starting from that stance I think there's more than enough community wealth from which to provide for better public access to health care.
As for the main point of this thread: Not only do doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, but they are licensed by the State -- it's perfectly reasonable for the state to impose responsibilities along with privileges like the right to practice medicine. "Conscientious Objector Policy" is one those names like the "Clear Sky Initiative" which allows for dirtier air -- there's nothing conscientious at all about "objecting" to treating a person in need of medical help.
Good post, shetline. Your reasoning fails in the end, though.
In a pluralistic society, there will always be disagreements about what is right and wrong in any sphere of life. Medical care is one of those spheres.
A Catholic believes that handing out condoms is wrong and that abortion is murder. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
As I said before, a free society should not force someone to violate their conscience. If we err, it should be on the side of freedom.
Originally posted by billybobsky
There is only one example where I believe this rule could be broken and that is with providing the care to someone who refuses to pay for it.
So you would agree with legislation to allow a Physician to deny treatment based on money, but not ethics?
Originally posted by Frank777
So you would agree with legislation to allow a Physician to deny treatment based on money, but not ethics?
No, i expect legislation to say that a patient that has refused to pay for care provided (and has the means to pay) can be justifiably denied care. Morals of a physician are and should be irrelevent. Ethics are something completely different than what this discussion is about...
Originally posted by Frank777
A Catholic believes that handing out condoms is wrong and that abortion is murder. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
There's a big difference between objecting to performing certain procedures, and objecting to aiding specific patients. If you can object to treating a patient based on any "moral, ethical or religious grounds", a doctor could say "I refuse to prescribe him antibiotics because he's gay" or "I refuse to fix her broken arm because she's a Jew".
Originally posted by Frank777
Good post, shetline. Your reasoning fails in the end, though.
In a pluralistic society, there will always be disagreements about what is right and wrong in any sphere of life. Medical care is one of those spheres.
A Catholic believes that handing out condoms is wrong and that abortion is murder. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
As I said before, a free society should not force someone to violate their conscience. If we err, it should be on the side of freedom.
In a pluralistic society, there will always be disagreements about what is right and wrong in any sphere of life. One of these spheres is gender roles.
A Muslim cleric believes that woman should not be allowed an education and that the sight of exposed female flesh is an abomination in the eyes of God. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
As you say, a free society should not force someone to violate their conscience. If we err, it should be on the side of freedom.
Originally posted by addabox
In a pluralistic society, there will always be disagreements about what is right and wrong in any sphere of life. One of these spheres is gender roles.
A Muslim cleric believes that woman should not be allowed an education and that the sight of exposed female flesh is an abomination in the eyes of God. Is it really that hard to accommodate these views?
As you say, a free society should not force someone to violate their conscience. If we err, it should be on the side of freedom.
Your attempt at reverse-psychology is cute, but extremely misguided.
In a pluralistic society, the cleric is free to believe what he wants to believe. No action can be forced upon him. The woman is free to believe what she wants to believe. No action can be forced upon her.
In the case of the doctor, he or she is being forced by law to act against the way his/her conscience dictates.
Originally posted by Frank777
Your attempt at reverse-psycology is cute, but extremely misguided.
In a pluralistic society, the cleric is free to believe what he wants to believe. No action can be forced upon him. The woman is free to believe what she wants to believe. No action can be forced upon her.
In the case of the doctor, he or she is being forced by law to act against the way his/her conscience dictates.
Ah, but what if the Muslim is not a cleric, but a police officer? Now his beliefs are being abused by what the job requires of him, i.e., rendering aid and assistance to single, unescorted women who haven't the decency to cover their flesh. Why should he be obliged to go against his creed? Shouldn't he be a "special" kind of policeman who gets to pick and choose the services he will perform, according to his beliefs?
Originally posted by jwri004
And what if you were a police officer?
If you decide to become a doctor, be a doctor, not a small minded POS.
:
Exactly. If I were a police officer I would be obliged to intervene. Personally I think I'd be obliged to intervene as a common-or-garden citizen, but hey.
Originally posted by addabox
Ah, but what if the Muslim is not a cleric, but a police officer? Now his beliefs are being abused by what the job requires of him, i.e., rendering aid and assistance to single, unescorted women who haven't the decency to cover their flesh. Why should he be obliged to go against his creed? Shouldn't he be a "special" kind of policeman who gets to pick and choose the services he will perform, according to his beliefs?
If the primary requirement of a job goes against one's core values, I think it is indeed reasonable to assume that people would avoid that choice of profession.
However, we're not dealing with people who trained to be abortionists or abortion support personnel and then suddenly asked to be relieved of the job because of their faith. Many people trained in the medical field back when abortion was illegal. Many train today to work in health care fields unrelated to abortion, only to be transferred to a unit due to scarce personnel. Some health care professionals are immigrants from countries where it's still illegal.
Accommodations can be made. To say that people who don't believe in abortion, handing out condoms to minors or handing out needles to addicts should be legally banned from working in the health care field is a tad extreme.
Originally posted by Frank777
To say that people who don't believe in abortion, handing out condoms to minors or handing out needles to addicts should be legally banned from working in the health care field is a tad extreme.
I'd suggest that they just quit. It's much easier.
all doctors that perform abortions trained to do it and chose to do it
g
Originally posted by Splinemodel
To Sammi Jo:
The hippocratic oath is not law. [/B]
I did not claim that....don't put words into my mouth. This is an ethics issue.
Originally posted by Kirkland
People have a right to medical service.
Hold it. No, they don't. And folks have a right to refuse to provide medical services for WHATEVER reason. And they shouldn't be sued for refusing to provide medical services.
The DISGUSTING thing here is that RELIGIOUS folks are behind something that turns away those in need. Absolutely disgusting.
Originally posted by shetline
If you can object to treating a patient based on any "moral, ethical or religious grounds", a doctor could say "I refuse to prescribe him antibiotics because he's gay" or "I refuse to fix her broken arm because she's a Jew".
Welcome to America, land of the free. Or not.
If someone chooses to NOT provide service BECAUSE they're a f*cking bigotted racist a$$hole, you have the inalienable right to point a finger and cry "A$$hole! at them." But they certainly should have the right to pick who they help.
Originally posted by finagain
Welcome to America, land of the free. Or not.
If someone chooses to NOT provide service BECAUSE they're a f*cking bigotted racist a$$hole, you have the inalienable right to point a finger and cry "A$$hole! at them." But they certainly should have the right to pick who they help.
Not if that person is licenced by the state. As a society, we certainly should have a right to deny licences on ethical grounds, and force such a person to either practice medicine without prejudice, or not at all. The doctor may not be obligated in any absolute sense to help gays or jews, but neither is the state obligated in any absolute sense to issue that particular doctor a license to practice.
disgusts
me
of
all
people
in
the
world
THIS
DISGUSTS
ME!
OH BOY!
PS
...you sure as **** should be healthy in this pursuit...so American doctors better treat every American...and people anywhere. They're ****ing physicians!
To hell with this "law". To hell with the doctors or physicians who "obey" them.