Doctor religious exemption hypothetical.

[Trajan]

Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:

The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.

The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.

However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.

Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.

lets cut to the chase, basically you’re asking if we feel a Doctor religious tenets should override the Hippocratic oath.


Answer; no.

If he she were to adopt a religious philosophy that usurps such, they should find another line of work.


Are you going ask about abortions next?

1.). I am not being coy in this thread. The OP notes that this is in response to the religious exemptions surrounding emergency contraception.

2.). The Hippocratic oath is not legally binding. Many medical schools no longer administer it or administer the updated "lasagna oath (seriously)" and many students, on religious grounds, refuse to take any oath.

3.). Thanks for weighing in on the matter. I appreciate it.

re: the oath, interesting, I didn't know that, thx.

imho, if a doctor has an issue with a procedure, then that needs to be stated up front and unequivocally, the employer can make an employment choice based on such. If the doctors 'ethics' change, then the employer must be able to maneuver under the new paradigm introduced BY the doctor, even if it means canning the doctor.

 

[geauxtohell]

lets cut to the chase, basically you’re asking if we feel a Doctor religious tenets should override the Hippocratic oath.


Answer; no.

If he she were to adopt a religious philosophy that usurps such, they should find another line of work.


Are you going ask about abortions next?

1.). I am not being coy in this thread. The OP notes that this is in response to the religious exemptions surrounding emergency contraception.

2.). The Hippocratic oath is not legally binding. Many medical schools no longer administer it or administer the updated "lasagna oath (seriously)" and many students, on religious grounds, refuse to take any oath.

3.). Thanks for weighing in on the matter. I appreciate it.

re: the oath, interesting, I didn't know that, thx.

imho, if a doctor has an issue with a procedure, then that needs to be stated up front and unequivocally, the employer can make an employment choice based on such. If the doctors 'ethics' change, then the employer must be able to maneuver under the new paradigm introduced BY the doctor, even if it means canning the doctor.

The original oath evokes Greek Polytheism and makes you swear to not sleep with the slaves of your patients. Could be a little tricky in modern times. Then again, it also forbade abortions.

I agree with your conclusion. If we are going to introduce situations where health care providers/etc can refuse treatment based on their religious beliefs, I think employers should also get a say (whether the employer is Wal Greens or a hospital). Though, I wonder how that will mesh with hiring discrimination laws?

At the least, if this becomes common practice, hospitals are going to have to scramble to try and figure out what individual beliefs a provider has on a multitude of health issues and provide coverage if the provider refuses to address them on religious grounds.

*Edit: Also an interesting aside. "First do no harm" also was never part of the original Hippocratic Oath. It was found in the Hippocratic Corpus, but not the oath that the Hippocratic Guild swore by. Though, it's generally agreed that the sentiments of that are contained in the original oath, that phrase is not a part of it.

 

[geauxtohell]

All these fantastic hypotheticals getting more and more outlandish by the moment are proving nothing but how insane people can truly be. And it is all to justify killling babies! If we don't support killing babies, we support withholding pain medication for broken bones. Liberals would have no problem whatsoever with a doctor telling a patient that due to their age and cost of procedure an elderly person should not have a pacemaker. In fact, the annointed messiah told a woman that instead of treatment, her mother should take a pill instead. Is it made better because the justification is political instead of religious?

I'm pro-choice but I still agree. These are very ridiculous hypotheticals.

Hypotheticals are intended to prompt an answer. They aren't necessary intended to be realistic.

How many multiple choice questions did you answer in the process of getting your license? I'll wager that I have answered close to 10,000. Were they all realistic? Of course not. Does it matter? Of course not. The point isn't whether it's a realistic situation. The point is to derive an answer.

 

[geauxtohell]

The doctor is in the wrong. He should do transfusion then retire form practicing medicine. He did take the oath to treat patents, that he has resently converted cannot be an excuse for him to allow a patent to die, not even his God would look kindly on breaking ones oath and costing a life

the oath is to do no harm..... not to treat.

In this case, with holding care is actively harming the patient.

In most situations, with holding care harms the patient.

 

[geauxtohell]

Same question wrapped up differently....

The Dr works for the hospital... and has ZERO right to refuse medical aid to anyone for ANY reason....regardless of what god he bows to.

The DR's job.. of which he is paid to preform.. is to treat patients who walk through the door. If he has a problem with that for what ever reason...he needs to get out of medicine and start a private practice where he can roll chicken bones at people to save them.

On that note, do you think physicians have the right to object to providing emergency contraception?

Thanks

Same answer..... no. The have zero right not to preform what the hospital is there to preform.


They are paid to do a job...not to make religious judgements..... If preforming their job is offensive to their religious ideas... they need to work in a religious practice where you know up front what they will and wont treat...

I generally agree.

Though, I agree with the current law that doesn't require OB/GYN residents to do abortions to get their licenses.

That is, they can opt out of that procedure if they feel it violates their conscious.

For reasons that I can't fully articulate, I see that as very different then refusing to provide emergency care. Even if it's not a life threatening issue.

 

[PredFan]

All these fantastic hypotheticals getting more and more outlandish by the moment are proving nothing but how insane people can truly be. And it is all to justify killling babies! If we don't support killing babies, we support withholding pain medication for broken bones. Liberals would have no problem whatsoever with a doctor telling a patient that due to their age and cost of procedure an elderly person should not have a pacemaker. In fact, the annointed messiah told a woman that instead of treatment, her mother should take a pill instead. Is it made better because the justification is political instead of religious?

I'm pro-choice but I still agree. These are very ridiculous hypotheticals.

Hypotheticals are intended to prompt an answer. They aren't necessary intended to be realistic.

If the hypothetical isn't at least realistic, then the answer isn't valid. If I answered your OP by saying "he should be arrested and thrown in jail, then you tried to use that to the next logical step, I could very easily deny it simply because the answer only applies within your very strict unrealistic scenario. So really, what is the point of so narrow a scenario?

How many multiple choice questions did you answer in the process of getting your license? I'll wager that I have answered close to 10,000. Were they all realistic? Of course not. Does it matter? Of course not. The point isn't whether it's a realistic situation. The point is to derive an answer.

My nursing boards, and the post-graduate degree boards and tests that I've taken were all realistic. I've had to take three sets of practicals in my time. All are MEANT to simulate real situations.

 

[WillowTree]

The doctor is in the wrong. He should do transfusion then retire form practicing medicine. He did take the oath to treat patents, that he has resently converted cannot be an excuse for him to allow a patent to die, not even his God would look kindly on breaking ones oath and costing a life

the oath is to do no harm..... not to treat.

In this case, with holding care is actively harming the patient.

In most situations, with holding care harms the patient.

Yes we know, there once was a fetus born alive instead of dying during his abortion. obama voted to withold life saving measures from this born alive person.. what kind of a fucking louse would do something like that?

 

[The T]

the oath is to do no harm..... not to treat.

In this case, with holding care is actively harming the patient.

In most situations, with holding care harms the patient.

Yes we know, there once was a fetus born alive instead of dying during his abortion. obama voted to withold life saving measures from this born alive person.. what kind of a fucking louse would do something like that?

Indeed...what were the doctors thinking leaving a dying infant to die in a closet? I'd say that was witholding care...wouldn't you?

 

[Ernie S.]

​

Actually, no one will address it. Instead, the are trying to change the hypothetical.

Eventually we will move to the morphine hypothetical.

Actually, it was you that kept adding to the hypothetical...

Now we have a small, one-doctor hospital with a JW nurse added in...

What's next? Rising flood waters and a bomb scare?

Are you another poster who won't address the OP "Dr."?

The hypothetical, I suppose is worth replying to, but the inevitable attempt to equate life saving blood transfusions to birth control is and will be, when it arrives, bullshit.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Do you have a documented case that this scenario has ever taken place? What were the results of the lawsuit? How much did the jury award?

Are you really so afraid to even TRY to directly address the hypothetical (which means there is no such case, btw), that this is the best you have?

There have been cases of doctors refusing to treat patients because they were gay. We had a long history of doctors refusing to treat blacks etc... for a long time. bullshit and more bullshit.

If the law that is proposed by the GOP passes, any emplyer could refuse any medical coverage for reasons they deemed "morally objectionable". So what if he was a Wahabb Muslim? Bad news for Jews and Christians, eh?

But you're okay with that, right?

is this law that the Republicans propose hypothetical too or do you have a link? or is the link hypothetical too?

Hmmm. Well there have certainly been times when I questioned the accuracy of what someone wrote although I believe I was a bit more eloquent (which in this case isn't saying much). When I found out they were correct, I of course apologized and acknowledged their post. I wonder if you will have the character to do that. I guess we'll see.

From the end of the Civil War, all the way through the 50's and even until shortly after the Civil Rights movement, there were white doctors (especially in the South) who refused to treat "miggers". If you're really so ignorant of your own country's history, I'll be happy to provide links. Just let me know.

Refusing to treat gays?
PRIDE in Utah » ‘Christian’ Doctor Refuses To Treat Gay Patients
Doctors with gay bias denied medication: A gay HIV-positive man says in court that a hospital denied him treatment and visitors, as the doctor remarked, "This is what he gets for going against God's will." : politics
Doctor Refuses to Treat Sinner | Evangelogia | Institute for Intellectual Discipleship at Union University

Would you like more examples or shall we conclude that it has happened?

As far as the bill introduced by the GOP that went beyond birth control, and contained the specific language "Medical procedures or products, the purpose of which they find morally objectionable", apparently you missed their attempt. It was fortunately, shot down.

"would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/u...sing-contraception-policy.html?pagewanted=all


So thusfar, you have used every tactic in the ConservaRepub playbook: dodge the issue, change the subject, claim nothing exist and demand proof, sling petty insults and so on.

But you have yet to directly address the topic of the OP or ensuing, similar topics. This seems to be a pattern with you, at least in this thread.
The continuation of such a pattern would be to continue to claim the thread is invalid (which has already been disproven), use moral equivalents, sling a few more petty insults and then Cut & Run.

I would be interested to see if you are willing to actually address the topics discussed and even support your position with facts, logic etc... (as I have in this post).

The pattern would predict that you are simply incapable of civil discussion and debate but who knows? People are great and they often surprise me

 

[PredFan]

Are you really so afraid to even TRY to directly address the hypothetical (which means there is no such case, btw), that this is the best you have?

There have been cases of doctors refusing to treat patients because they were gay. We had a long history of doctors refusing to treat blacks etc... for a long time. bullshit and more bullshit.

If the law that is proposed by the GOP passes, any emplyer could refuse any medical coverage for reasons they deemed "morally objectionable". So what if he was a Wahabb Muslim? Bad news for Jews and Christians, eh?

But you're okay with that, right?

is this law that the Republicans propose hypothetical too or do you have a link? or is the link hypothetical too?

Hmmm. Well there have certainly been times when I questioned the accuracy of what someone wrote although I believe I was a bit more eloquent (which in this case isn't saying much). When I found out they were correct, I of course apologized and acknowledged their post. I wonder if you will have the character to do that. I guess we'll see.

From the end of the Civil War, all the way through the 50's and even until shortly after the Civil Rights movement, there were white doctors (especially in the South) who refused to treat "miggers". If you're really so ignorant of your own country's history, I'll be happy to provide links. Just let me know.

Refusing to treat gays?
PRIDE in Utah » ‘Christian’ Doctor Refuses To Treat Gay Patients
Doctors with gay bias denied medication: A gay HIV-positive man says in court that a hospital denied him treatment and visitors, as the doctor remarked, "This is what he gets for going against God's will." : politics
Doctor Refuses to Treat Sinner | Evangelogia | Institute for Intellectual Discipleship at Union University

Would you like more examples or shall we conclude that it has happened?

As far as the bill introduced by the GOP that went beyond birth control, and contained the specific language "Medical procedures or products, the purpose of which they find morally objectionable", apparently you missed their attempt. It was fortunately, shot down.

"would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/u...sing-contraception-policy.html?pagewanted=all


So thusfar, you have used every tactic in the ConservaRepub playbook: dodge the issue, change the subject, claim nothing exist and demand proof, sling petty insults and so on.

But you have yet to directly address the topic of the OP or ensuing, similar topics. This seems to be a pattern with you, at least in this thread.
The continuation of such a pattern would be to continue to claim the thread is invalid (which has already been disproven), use moral equivalents, sling a few more petty insults and then Cut & Run.

I would be interested to see if you are willing to actually address the topics discussed and even support your position with facts, logic etc... (as I have in this post).

The pattern would predict that you are simply incapable of civil discussion and debate but who knows? People are great and they often surprise me

Your first two examples are not credible sources and provide very little information. Can't tell context nor can we see if anything at all was done in the way of repercussions.

Your third example was a doctor who refused infertility treatments to a gay couple. That is not a life or death situation and a doctor in that case should be allowed to refuse treatment to anyone he chooses. The couple can easily choose another fertility specialist.

Sorry, you fail.

 

[Amelia]

Do those who object to Geaux's hypothetical also object to the courts considering the broccoli hypothetical when deciding on the fate of the ACA?

 

[MaxCha]

I'm pretty sure I neither asked you to weigh in on how I address VLWC or anyone else on this board, nor do I give a rat's ass about your opinion now that you've volunteered it unsolicited. There are few things in this world that bore me senseless faster than some pompous newbie pronouncing on relationships between posters he doesn't know. If your hubris can stand the advice, may I suggest that you take a few days to get to know people before pretending that you do?

Furthermore, twerp, I don't care if he "said it was hypothetical", or if he said it danced the hucklebuck naked in the moonlight. It was a retarded question, based on an utter lack of knowledge about life, and if you take being told when someone's stepping on their johnson, reality-wise, as "instigating something", then I also suggest that you take your thin-skinned candy-ass somewhere nicer. I'm sure there's a Care Bear forum somewhere on the Internet. Try that.

I'm sure YOU are aware that those "ridiculous and improbable scenarios" have already happened. People actually DO have sex with animals - which is correctly called "zoophilia", by the way - and people actually do have sex with blood relatives. In fact, at certain times and places and circumstances in human history, incest was common. There are even occasions in this very country where blood relatives DO marry each other, under prescribed circumstances. And finally, there have already been court cases attempting to claim all manner of crazy "marriage rights" on the basis of the cases being carried like war banners by the homosexual activists. So far (except for certain very specific cases of incest), they've been dismissed as silly and far-fetched, but do let's try to remember that fifty years ago, the same would have been said for homosexuals.

So perhaps you'd better find a better "ridiculous and improbable" analogy for a Jehovah's Witness emergency room doctor. Maybe a whorehouse madam who's a virgin. That sounds about the level of reality for you and your new compatriots.

I'm courteous to people who deserve it. VLWC and his ilk have manifestly proven that they do not. Wanna guess which side of the equation YOUR obnoxious ass falls on right now?

You are just proving my point. I was just pointing out that you were throwing around insults as opposed to speaking rationally.

That's what people who spout prejudice, illogical crap do.

And yes I am a "NOOB". And?

 

[BDBoop]

I'm pretty sure I neither asked you to weigh in on how I address VLWC or anyone else on this board, nor do I give a rat's ass about your opinion now that you've volunteered it unsolicited. There are few things in this world that bore me senseless faster than some pompous newbie pronouncing on relationships between posters he doesn't know. If your hubris can stand the advice, may I suggest that you take a few days to get to know people before pretending that you do?

Furthermore, twerp, I don't care if he "said it was hypothetical", or if he said it danced the hucklebuck naked in the moonlight. It was a retarded question, based on an utter lack of knowledge about life, and if you take being told when someone's stepping on their johnson, reality-wise, as "instigating something", then I also suggest that you take your thin-skinned candy-ass somewhere nicer. I'm sure there's a Care Bear forum somewhere on the Internet. Try that.

I'm sure YOU are aware that those "ridiculous and improbable scenarios" have already happened. People actually DO have sex with animals - which is correctly called "zoophilia", by the way - and people actually do have sex with blood relatives. In fact, at certain times and places and circumstances in human history, incest was common. There are even occasions in this very country where blood relatives DO marry each other, under prescribed circumstances. And finally, there have already been court cases attempting to claim all manner of crazy "marriage rights" on the basis of the cases being carried like war banners by the homosexual activists. So far (except for certain very specific cases of incest), they've been dismissed as silly and far-fetched, but do let's try to remember that fifty years ago, the same would have been said for homosexuals.

So perhaps you'd better find a better "ridiculous and improbable" analogy for a Jehovah's Witness emergency room doctor. Maybe a whorehouse madam who's a virgin. That sounds about the level of reality for you and your new compatriots.

I'm courteous to people who deserve it. VLWC and his ilk have manifestly proven that they do not. Wanna guess which side of the equation YOUR obnoxious ass falls on right now?

You are just proving my point. I was just pointing out that you were throwing around insults as opposed to speaking rationally.

That's what people who spout prejudice, illogical crap do.

And yes I am a "NOOB". And?

No worries. KG called me a noob a week or so ago. I think she and CCLies have mad synchronized PMS skills.

 

[IndependntLogic]

is this law that the Republicans propose hypothetical too or do you have a link? or is the link hypothetical too?

Hmmm. Well there have certainly been times when I questioned the accuracy of what someone wrote although I believe I was a bit more eloquent (which in this case isn't saying much). When I found out they were correct, I of course apologized and acknowledged their post. I wonder if you will have the character to do that. I guess we'll see.

From the end of the Civil War, all the way through the 50's and even until shortly after the Civil Rights movement, there were white doctors (especially in the South) who refused to treat "miggers". If you're really so ignorant of your own country's history, I'll be happy to provide links. Just let me know.

Refusing to treat gays?
PRIDE in Utah » ‘Christian’ Doctor Refuses To Treat Gay Patients
Doctors with gay bias denied medication: A gay HIV-positive man says in court that a hospital denied him treatment and visitors, as the doctor remarked, "This is what he gets for going against God's will." : politics
Doctor Refuses to Treat Sinner | Evangelogia | Institute for Intellectual Discipleship at Union University

Would you like more examples or shall we conclude that it has happened?

As far as the bill introduced by the GOP that went beyond birth control, and contained the specific language "Medical procedures or products, the purpose of which they find morally objectionable", apparently you missed their attempt. It was fortunately, shot down.

"would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/u...sing-contraception-policy.html?pagewanted=all


So thusfar, you have used every tactic in the ConservaRepub playbook: dodge the issue, change the subject, claim nothing exist and demand proof, sling petty insults and so on.

But you have yet to directly address the topic of the OP or ensuing, similar topics. This seems to be a pattern with you, at least in this thread.
The continuation of such a pattern would be to continue to claim the thread is invalid (which has already been disproven), use moral equivalents, sling a few more petty insults and then Cut & Run.

I would be interested to see if you are willing to actually address the topics discussed and even support your position with facts, logic etc... (as I have in this post).

The pattern would predict that you are simply incapable of civil discussion and debate but who knows? People are great and they often surprise me

Your first two examples are not credible sources and provide very little information. Can't tell context nor can we see if anything at all was done in the way of repercussions.

Your third example was a doctor who refused infertility treatments to a gay couple. That is not a life or death situation and a doctor in that case should be allowed to refuse treatment to anyone he chooses. The couple can easily choose another fertility specialist.

Sorry, you fail.

Wow. What a pussy. Seriously? That's all you got? The bill introduced by the GOP would allow medical professionals and companies to refuse to perform anything they found "morally objectionable". These are examples of things that DID happen (I love the whackjobs who dodge a point by saying "I don't like the source!" Libs do it with Newsmax or whatever, Conservs do it with anything else) before such a law was even passed.
It is a logical progression that if the law were passed, more instances of refusing treatment based on moral objection would occur - otherwise, why pass a law.

So dodge, change the subject, claim "nothing to see here" or cut & Run. Some day when you grow a pair, want to man up and directly address issues that way I do, just let me know.
In the meantime, you, The T and others can continue to run from the topic! That's funny!

 

[Too Tall]

Since everyone seems obsessed with healthcare issues related to sex, let's try another one and let the pro and con sides argue their points:

The setting is an ER in a small town. A trauma comes in. The patient is in hypovolemic shock and has already gotten a 2 liter bolus of saline in the field but still has a weak pulse and unstable vitals/decreasing blood pressure.

The ER has 4 bags of type O blood ready to transfuse when the patient arrives.

However, the physician covering the ER that night recently converted to be a Jehovah's Witness and refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs. The patient expires before another physician can be tracked down.

Did he have a right to refuse the transfusion.

Same question wrapped up differently....

The Dr works for the hospital... and has ZERO right to refuse medical aid to anyone for ANY reason....regardless of what god he bows to.

The DR's job.. of which he is paid to preform.. is to treat patients who walk through the door. If he has a problem with that for what ever reason...he needs to get out of medicine and start a private practice where he can roll chicken bones at people to save them.

On that note, do you think physicians have the right to object to providing emergency contraception?

Thanks

"What in the hell is 'emergency contraception"?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Same question wrapped up differently....

The Dr works for the hospital... and has ZERO right to refuse medical aid to anyone for ANY reason....regardless of what god he bows to.

The DR's job.. of which he is paid to preform.. is to treat patients who walk through the door. If he has a problem with that for what ever reason...he needs to get out of medicine and start a private practice where he can roll chicken bones at people to save them.

On that note, do you think physicians have the right to object to providing emergency contraception?

Thanks

"What in the hell is 'emergency contraception"?

An example would be if a woman has been raped. She could get a Morning After pill to prevent the possibility of pregnancy from the rape.

 

[PredFan]

The jury will award the victim millions.

This is why no hospital administrator would allow this to happen. Any nurse administrator, who would be available in site 24-7, would get another doctor or call the medical director at home (if it's in the middle of the night) and have another doctor come in and take care of the situation.

And in the time it takes that to happen, the patient is suffering.

It wouldn't take more than 5 minutes to do this.

 

[The T]

Do those who object to Geaux's hypothetical also object to the courts considering the broccoli hypothetical when deciding on the fate of the ACA?

Context?

 

[PredFan]

Hmmm. Well there have certainly been times when I questioned the accuracy of what someone wrote although I believe I was a bit more eloquent (which in this case isn't saying much). When I found out they were correct, I of course apologized and acknowledged their post. I wonder if you will have the character to do that. I guess we'll see.

From the end of the Civil War, all the way through the 50's and even until shortly after the Civil Rights movement, there were white doctors (especially in the South) who refused to treat "miggers". If you're really so ignorant of your own country's history, I'll be happy to provide links. Just let me know.

Refusing to treat gays?
PRIDE in Utah » ‘Christian’ Doctor Refuses To Treat Gay Patients
Doctors with gay bias denied medication: A gay HIV-positive man says in court that a hospital denied him treatment and visitors, as the doctor remarked, "This is what he gets for going against God's will." : politics
Doctor Refuses to Treat Sinner | Evangelogia | Institute for Intellectual Discipleship at Union University

Would you like more examples or shall we conclude that it has happened?

As far as the bill introduced by the GOP that went beyond birth control, and contained the specific language "Medical procedures or products, the purpose of which they find morally objectionable", apparently you missed their attempt. It was fortunately, shot down.

"would allow employers to deny coverage for other items and services to which they objected"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/u...sing-contraception-policy.html?pagewanted=all


So thusfar, you have used every tactic in the ConservaRepub playbook: dodge the issue, change the subject, claim nothing exist and demand proof, sling petty insults and so on.

But you have yet to directly address the topic of the OP or ensuing, similar topics. This seems to be a pattern with you, at least in this thread.
The continuation of such a pattern would be to continue to claim the thread is invalid (which has already been disproven), use moral equivalents, sling a few more petty insults and then Cut & Run.

I would be interested to see if you are willing to actually address the topics discussed and even support your position with facts, logic etc... (as I have in this post).

The pattern would predict that you are simply incapable of civil discussion and debate but who knows? People are great and they often surprise me

Your first two examples are not credible sources and provide very little information. Can't tell context nor can we see if anything at all was done in the way of repercussions.

Your third example was a doctor who refused infertility treatments to a gay couple. That is not a life or death situation and a doctor in that case should be allowed to refuse treatment to anyone he chooses. The couple can easily choose another fertility specialist.

Sorry, you fail.

Wow. What a pussy. Seriously? That's all you got? The bill introduced by the GOP would allow medical professionals and companies to refuse to perform anything they found "morally objectionable". These are examples of things that DID happen (I love the whackjobs who dodge a point by saying "I don't like the source!" Libs do it with Newsmax or whatever, Conservs do it with anything else) before such a law was even passed.
It is a logical progression that if the law were passed, more instances of refusing treatment based on moral objection would occur - otherwise, why pass a law.

So dodge, change the subject, claim "nothing to see here" or cut & Run. Some day when you grow a pair, want to man up and directly address issues that way I do, just let me know.
In the meantime, you, The T and others can continue to run from the topic! That's funny!

And you can't read or count either.
You still fail for the exact same reasons. Deal with it.