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

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.webmd.com/news/20081219/new-conscience-rule-controversy

See above link to 2-page article for further information.

I'm glad I don't have sex, otherwise I might find it tricky to get birth control. I just hope I don't ever have surgery again and need a blood transfusion because some peoples' religions oppose that.

Now... where's the facepalm emoticon?

This will do just fine.

I wonder what else Bush has to throw at us on his way out?

I think you're blowing this out of proportion. One doctor not giving out birth control is like one supermarket not selling condoms. In any case, I can't see any actual moral justification for not giving out birth control -- pro-lifers might object to the morning after pill, but that's different. As for whatever oddball kooky religion bans transfusions -- how often do you think people like that would want to become doctors anyway?

Technically speaking, oral contraceptive pills can cause miscarriage. They greatly reduce the likelihood of an embryo forming, and if one does form it will usually be unable to bind to the uterine wall and will cease to develop and probably come out with the next period, unnoticed.

As many know due to the stem cell research debate, some people consider embryos to be life forms, and therefore take a stance against oral contraceptives as they can cause a (single-cell) embryo to be rejected by the body. FYI, the same thing is not uncommon in women who have completely unprotected sex - embryos are formed and swiftly rejected by the body for all kinds of natural reasons, and this goes unnoticed because of their size.

As for access, it depends where you live. In some rural areas, there is only one pharmacy, or hospital, and not everyone has access to transportation that would allow them to drive to a distant one.

The only religion I know of that's even quirky about blood transfusions is Islam... and even then, it's just that they mostly prefer for a Muslim doctor to make the decision that a transfusion is necessary. There may be a few sects that outright forbid transfusions, but I don't think they're very common. And I think their religious beliefs in that regard even are just for other Muslims -- like -- if you're not a Muslim you can have all the transfusions you want irrespective of need as long as some schmuck doctor's willing to give you one. Rather like the fact that orthodox Jews really don't give a damn that Christians eat non-kosher meats.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/2320

Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions. Typically, they refuse to receive them under any circumstances.

However, I do not know what they're stance(s) would be on giving them to other people, or letting other people receive them. I bet opinions would vary among individual followers of that faith.

Ahhh... didn't know about the witnesses ... Not sure about varying opinions though... it's hard to say with them... I mean... it happens in every church to some extent -- look at the subculture of gay Mormons. But what gets me about the witnesses (aside from how hokey some of their pamphlets are) is that the "basic tenets" of their religion aren't in "a book" (the Bible) or even in "a couple of books" (Mormons have Bible, Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price), but rather in "a small library" of books. It basically takes up an entire bookshelf to itself. Or so I was told from a woman I knew who claimed to have been a witness for several years. But then I find orthodox Judaism to be mind-bogglingly complicated as well.

One of my good friends is a JW - she says they oppose blood transfusion but won't refuse blood substitutes you can get now, as they aren't blood, and that'd be silly not to because who would die rather than get a medical product that can save their life? And that they have nothing against others having them and it'd be unlikely they'd refuse to give them to someone who wasn't JW as that'd be stupid.

From what I know of her they're usually pretty reasonable about things.

The witnesses were what I was thinking of when I made the blood transfusion comment (didn't realise Muslims had anything against/special rules for transfusions). I used to live in a neighborhood where a lot of people, pretty much everyone besides my family, were JWs, so I learned quite a bit.

a muslim woman served alcohol in a cocktail bar yet a muslim man got sacked because he refused to handle bottles of alcohol at the tesco's where he worked, people pick out what parts of a religion they want to follow so it depends on the people involved.

if i were a doctor and a child needed an operation to save their life i'd give it to them and no religion could tell me otherwise, why let a silly belief stop someone from surviving. what if you had a religion that prohibited seatbelts? would the law change? for stupid reasons, most probably.

i think doctors refusing to care for patients is disgraceful, if a prison doctor can get fired for not wanting to treat a rapist why should another doctor be allowed to refuse treating a good person because it contradicts their religion?

BAD IDEA!

It's like giving medical moral decisions, to little kids who will say they don't want someone to live, cause they don't believe Santy Claus is real. Well that's the level of maturity I give to religious people, generally.

Fortunately most people in the modern world are much more sensible these days, but it used to be that religion outranked all other considerations. Historically there have been quite a number of religious laws that insisted not only that people be allowed to die, but specifically that the followers of the religion murder certain other people. And performing the murder has been considered a high holy honor. Hence the reason why we still have suicide bombers. Somewhere there may be a religion that hasn't had some kind of murderous law, but I'm not sure what it would be. Christianity's been through it, Islam is still going through it, Buddhism has been through it, etc...

That's cool. All the JW's I've met have been really nice, friendly people. But I hate to generalize about anything - there must be evil ones amongst them!

I was thoroughly amused when I answered the door in my boxer shorts one day to a couple of Witnesses... both guys... now, when I was a kid I was really uncomfortable with eye-contact. Now that I'm an adult I mostly just worry that I don't do it to other people's satisfaction... But here I was just answering the door of my apartment, these two guys made the biggest show of being visibly disturbed by the fact that I was in my boxer shorts. Stared at the ground in front of my door and shoving their pamphlet out sideways toward me at arm's length.

I mean, come on, honestly! I was no more or less dressed than I would have been at the beach. The only difference was there wasn't a beach. Their discomfort was their fault, not mine (for once!). :)

I took it, said the obligatory thank you and closed the door, snickering. Looked at the pamphlet and noticed that it was about "the whore of Babylon" and contained a bunch of information about the book of Revelations that I happen to already have some really good debunking on. The writing was really silly... I have a tough time understanding how writing like that can persuade anyone.

Why the shock? You were dressed the way people are dressed when they're at home. If they don't like seeing people like that, then they should stop knocking on doors.

It's not like you're going to put on a suit to answer the door.

This is sick and wrong. I don't believe that doctors should refuse to do something because of their beliefs. It's wrong.