Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Controversy Over New 'Conscience' Rule (for health services)

Page 3 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

23 Dec 2008, 11:00 am

LKL wrote:
If a medical student has a moral objection to performing abortions, he or she can choose not to be an Ob/Gyn.
If an Ob/Gyn has a moral objection to performing abortions, he or she can choose to work at a Catholic hospital.
No doctor is 'forced' to perform abortions if they don't want to; they simply have to choose fields or hospitals that fit with their objections.

This kind of silly thinking is what inspired this rule in the first place. It's like segregation. "Yeah, you colored folks can use any water fountain you like. As long as it isn't labeled 'for nice white people'". Exactly why should someone wanting to become an Ob/Gyn be required to violate their own ethics in order to do that?

Quote:
The rule change allows doctors that object not only to abortion, but to birth control or any other procedure, to refuse to perform that procedure in any clinical setting, from hospitals to fertility clinics to women's health centers. A clerk at a fertility clinic, for instance, could refuse to process the bill for a lesbian who was paying the clinic for artificial insemination because the clerk doesn't believe that lesbians should have children.

They can't object to "any procedure", because they have to have a bona-fide issue of conscience. The majority of medical procedures exist to heal people -- how can you have a moral objection to that? Your artificial insemination example doesn't ring true. They wouldn't have a bona-fide moral objection to artificial insemination -- the procedure. The new rule doesn't give anyone leeway to object to people or their behavior.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


nightbender
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,065

23 Dec 2008, 12:24 pm

I am hoping this leads to psych hospital workers refusing to force medicatied and electroshock "patient"
'



Kara_h
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 139
Location: Washington, DC

23 Dec 2008, 1:10 pm

I have heard nothing but negatives about this new law. Contraception. The transgendered community. Disability communities. Pretty much any community that relies on some form of medical thing and someone *might* be opposed to. Take your pick.

One of Shrubya's farewell gifts to us. :(



ike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 693
Location: Boston, MA

23 Dec 2008, 5:09 pm

familiar_stranger wrote:
here's another topic not yet brought up, what if a doctor believes it immoral to allow a suffering patient to live?


Not after the latest ruling in the Kevorkian case in which he chose to represent himself and was sentenced to life in prison in the state of Michigan. The guy he euthanized, Thomas Youk was in the final stages of ALS - no cure - and had asked for and signed consent to be euthanized. It's true that Kevorkian's license to practice medicine had been revoked several years before, but, it doesn't really matter because euthanasia is still illegal regardless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian


_________________
Are you a HooLiGaN?
http://www.woohooligan.com/archive.php?a=wp


ike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 693
Location: Boston, MA

23 Dec 2008, 5:17 pm

LKL wrote:
ike wrote:
The reason why they passed this is because a while ago there was a law passed that made it illegal for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion on the basis of their own beliefs. So basically what they had said to the doctors is "we don't care how you feel, you can either perform abortions, or you can choose another profession".


That is false.
If a medical student has a moral objection to performing abortions, he or she can choose not to be an Ob/Gyn.
If an Ob/Gyn has a moral objection to performing abortions, he or she can choose to work at a Catholic hospital.
No doctor is 'forced' to perform abortions if they don't want to; they simply have to choose fields or hospitals that fit with their objections.


That is false.

A person who's dreamed of being an OB/GYN for years is not going to be equally happy with the choice of "perform abortions or derail your profession to podiatry". Just because some people may not particularly care what they do for a living doesn't mean that everyone doesn't, so the ruling of "OB/Gyn's *must* perform abortions" is truly disturbing for a lot of people seeking that profession. And at the time of the previous ruling, they were not given the option of choosing to work for a Catholic hospital, because the law required Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.


_________________
Are you a HooLiGaN?
http://www.woohooligan.com/archive.php?a=wp


ike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 693
Location: Boston, MA

23 Dec 2008, 5:30 pm

nightbender wrote:
I am hoping this leads to psych hospital workers refusing to force medicatied and electroshock "patient"
'


Well only one in 600 people even receive electroconvulsive therapy and even those are both anesthetized and usually with consent. In the US specifically in order to perform ECT without consent, it has to be considered life-saving (a catatonic person who's not eating) and even then requires a judicial proceeding. It's not the same thing they were doing in the 50's. Not that there aren't still atrocities committed, but ECT and the laws surrounding it have changed quite a lot in the years since it was introduced in the 1930s. I was actually surprised that it's still performed at all, but apparently there have been some studies that indicate some benefits to its use in extreme cases... but it's certainly not used in the cavalier way it used to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_therapy


_________________
Are you a HooLiGaN?
http://www.woohooligan.com/archive.php?a=wp


ike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 693
Location: Boston, MA

23 Dec 2008, 5:33 pm

Kara_h wrote:
I have heard nothing but negatives about this new law. Contraception. The transgendered community. Disability communities. Pretty much any community that relies on some form of medical thing and someone *might* be opposed to. Take your pick.

One of Shrubya's farewell gifts to us. :(


Contraception just requires a 2nd opinon... What disabled communities have concerns about it? Transgender community I would find surprising as well ... if the person is seeing a gender specialist I have a hard time imagining them objecting to gender therapies... that would be like the anesthesiologist objecting to anesthesia.


_________________
Are you a HooLiGaN?
http://www.woohooligan.com/archive.php?a=wp


Kara_h
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 139
Location: Washington, DC

23 Dec 2008, 7:38 pm

ike wrote:
What disabled communities have concerns about it? Transgender community I would find surprising as well


In the case of both, the concern is that anyone working at a hospital or such could decide whether or not the person violated their individual conscience .... whether or not the medical service had anything to do with the medical service.

For example, I am a transsexual. If I have a seizure the ambulance will just take me to whatever hospital ER is the least busy at that moment, so I have no input into that decision. What if, when I get there, the dr treating me feels that changing a person's physical sex violates their conscience and they withhold treatment?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Dec 2008, 9:25 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
LKL wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
:roll: How many anaestheaseologists do you know that have a moral problem with giving anaestheasea?


Gosh, that sort of sounds like ...a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription. :roll:

Not quite. Anaesthesea can be objected to or not, if it were objected to by someone, they wouldn't have ever wanted to become an anaestheseologist in the first place. A pharmacist can't object to filling prescriptions per se.

If you're referring to any specific type of potentially objectionable prescription, you may have a point. But implying that you might possibly have a point is not making your point.


This law *ORIGINATED* because fundie pharmacists didn't want to fill birth control and 'day after' prescriptions. Some pharmacies, understandably, fired pharmacists who refused to fill legitimate doctor's prescriptions; those pharmacists cried foul to their churches, and the churches put pressure on fundie politicians to allow pharmacists and anyone else to impose their religion on everyone they serve.



ike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 693
Location: Boston, MA

23 Dec 2008, 10:01 pm

Kara_h wrote:
ike wrote:
What disabled communities have concerns about it? Transgender community I would find surprising as well


In the case of both, the concern is that anyone working at a hospital or such could decide whether or not the person violated their individual conscience .... whether or not the medical service had anything to do with the medical service.

For example, I am a transsexual. If I have a seizure the ambulance will just take me to whatever hospital ER is the least busy at that moment, so I have no input into that decision. What if, when I get there, the dr treating me feels that changing a person's physical sex violates their conscience and they withhold treatment?


The ruling doesn't seem to allow that though.


_________________
Are you a HooLiGaN?
http://www.woohooligan.com/archive.php?a=wp


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Dec 2008, 10:01 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
LKL wrote:
If a medical student has a moral objection to performing abortions, he or she can choose not to be an Ob/Gyn.
If an Ob/Gyn has a moral objection to performing abortions, he or she can choose to work at a Catholic hospital.
No doctor is 'forced' to perform abortions if they don't want to; they simply have to choose fields or hospitals that fit with their objections.

This kind of silly thinking is what inspired this rule in the first place. It's like segregation. "Yeah, you colored folks can use any water fountain you like. As long as it isn't labeled 'for nice white people'". Exactly why should someone wanting to become an Ob/Gyn be required to violate their own ethics in order to do that?


If you had read ALL of what I wrote, you would realize that they don't have to. They simply have to choose a catholic hospital to work at.

Do you think it's legitimate for a vegetarian to choose to work at a deli and then refuse to make any sandwiches with meat on them? YES, some vegetarians have religious backing for their beliefs. If a vegetarian has a problem with handling meat, then they should work at a vegetarian deli.

Quote:
They can't object to "any procedure", because they have to have a bona-fide issue of conscience.


They can object to *any procedure* that they personally find a violation of conscience, up to and including birth control prescriptions.

Quote:
Your artificial insemination example doesn't ring true. They wouldn't have a bona-fide moral objection to artificial insemination -- the procedure. The new rule doesn't give anyone leeway to object to people or their behavior.


You speak from ignorance.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/oct/05101803.html
http://www.lesbianhealthinfo.org/your_h ... nation.htm
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/ ... Access.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... pill_x.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198 ... /lawcenter



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Dec 2008, 10:06 pm

ike wrote:
LKL wrote:
ike wrote:
The reason why they passed this is because a while ago there was a law passed that made it illegal for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion on the basis of their own beliefs. So basically what they had said to the doctors is "we don't care how you feel, you can either perform abortions, or you can choose another profession".


That is false.
If a medical student has a moral objection to performing abortions, he or she can choose not to be an Ob/Gyn.
If an Ob/Gyn has a moral objection to performing abortions, he or she can choose to work at a Catholic hospital.
No doctor is 'forced' to perform abortions if they don't want to; they simply have to choose fields or hospitals that fit with their objections.


That is false.

A person who's dreamed of being an OB/GYN for years is not going to be equally happy with the choice of "perform abortions or derail your profession to podiatry". Just because some people may not particularly care what they do for a living doesn't mean that everyone doesn't, so the ruling of "OB/Gyn's *must* perform abortions" is truly disturbing for a lot of people seeking that profession. And at the time of the previous ruling, they were not given the option of choosing to work for a Catholic hospital, because the law required Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.


you speak from ignorance.
I *work* at a Catholic hospital that happens, imnsho, to be the best hospital in the region. We have several Ob/Gyn's and multiple CNMs with hospital priveledges, none of whom 'have' to perform abortions.



ike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 693
Location: Boston, MA

23 Dec 2008, 10:16 pm

LKL wrote:
This law *ORIGINATED* because fundie pharmacists didn't want to fill birth control and 'day after' prescriptions. Some pharmacies, understandably, fired pharmacists who refused to fill legitimate doctor's prescriptions; those pharmacists cried foul to their churches, and the churches put pressure on fundie politicians to allow pharmacists and anyone else to impose their religion on everyone they serve.


That would actually NOT be imposing their religion on everyone they serve, because the individual customer can simply choose to give their business to a different pharmacy... Medical industry is the only industry in which this is even a question, as in other industries the business owner has the right to refuse service "to anyone for any reason", which is way more liberal than this, but even then in spite of the language it doesn't hold up if your reason for denying service can be proved to be race for example. Allowing an individual pharmacy to choose not to carry the morning after pill? Puh-leaze... choose a different pharmacy ... and the pharmacies that carry them will get all that business. They can even advertise that they carry it if they want to make it easier for people to find them.


_________________
Are you a HooLiGaN?
http://www.woohooligan.com/archive.php?a=wp


ike
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 693
Location: Boston, MA

23 Dec 2008, 10:17 pm

LKL wrote:
you speak from ignorance.
I *work* at a Catholic hospital that happens, imnsho, to be the best hospital in the region. We have several Ob/Gyn's and multiple CNMs with hospital priveledges, none of whom 'have' to perform abortions.


Currently.


_________________
Are you a HooLiGaN?
http://www.woohooligan.com/archive.php?a=wp


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Dec 2008, 10:41 pm

ike wrote:
LKL wrote:
This law *ORIGINATED* because fundie pharmacists didn't want to fill birth control and 'day after' prescriptions. Some pharmacies, understandably, fired pharmacists who refused to fill legitimate doctor's prescriptions; those pharmacists cried foul to their churches, and the churches put pressure on fundie politicians to allow pharmacists and anyone else to impose their religion on everyone they serve.


That would actually NOT be imposing their religion on everyone they serve, because the individual customer can simply choose to give their business to a different pharmacy...


Not if the pharmacist won't release their prescription. Which *has* happened.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Dec 2008, 10:43 pm

ike wrote:
LKL wrote:
you speak from ignorance.
I *work* at a Catholic hospital that happens, imnsho, to be the best hospital in the region. We have several Ob/Gyn's and multiple CNMs with hospital priveledges, none of whom 'have' to perform abortions.


Currently.


Meaning... what? Do you think some law is going to be passed forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?

Because if you mean to imply that they might have been forced to perform abortions *before* Bush's recent mandate from on high, you would be incorrect. Again.