Doctor religious exemption hypothetical.

[Vast LWC]

Title VII states: "Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer."

Hmm, that is a good point, and one that I was unaware of.

And in fact, title VII also says:

it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor*management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise

So, if a hospital hires a member of a religion that doesn't believe in practicing medicine, then it's their fault, and they are liable.

 

[Vast LWC]

It was an interesting hypothetical though.

 

[Missourian]

Just a note:

See Nov. 15, 1964 Watchtower pp.680-3: "In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor's own conscience."

So a doctor is NOT prohibited by doctrine from administering a blood transfusion.

JW Files - Research on Jehovah's Witnesses - Watchtower Bible & Tract Society - Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

 

[geauxtohell]

You mean this hypothetical hospital wouldn't have an on-call doctor?

What would happen if they had an accident with multiple victims? Would the single ER doctor choose who gets to live?

Why do they need an on call doctor when they have an attending one?

To the second, they don't get much trauma. It's a small town.

Small towns don't have car crashes?

Yes, but in small towns there is often not enough trauma for a hospital to have trauma protocols or board certified EM physicians.

 

[Dr.House]

And while the head nurse is frantically trying to raise another doctor in this small town, the patient is actively dying.

You mean this hypothetical hospital wouldn't have an on-call doctor?

What would happen if they had an accident with multiple victims? Would the single ER doctor choose who gets to live?

Why do they need an on call doctor when they have an attending one?

To the second, they don't get much trauma. It's a small town.

A hospital with only one doctor?

Huhwah?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just a note:

See Nov. 15, 1964 Watchtower pp.680-3: "In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor's own conscience."

So a doctor is NOT prohibited by doctrine from administering a blood transfusion.

JW Files - Research on Jehovah's Witnesses - Watchtower Bible & Tract Society - Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

The OP said: "refuses to transfuse the patient because he believes it violates his religious beliefs".


His religious beliefs may not be in accordance with "doctrine". The basis was his personal beliefs.


>>>>

 

[geauxtohell]

Just a note:

See Nov. 15, 1964 Watchtower pp.680-3: "In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor's own conscience."

So a doctor is NOT prohibited by doctrine from administering a blood transfusion.

JW Files - Research on Jehovah's Witnesses - Watchtower Bible & Tract Society - Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

One of the nurses happens to also be a jehovah's witness and makes that point. The physician replies: "who are you to tell me my religious beliefs?"

 

[Missourian]

This hypothetical is falling apart.

What small town are we talking about.

 

[geauxtohell]

Just a note:

See Nov. 15, 1964 Watchtower pp.680-3: "In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor's own conscience."

So a doctor is NOT prohibited by doctrine from administering a blood transfusion.

JW Files - Research on Jehovah's Witnesses - Watchtower Bible & Tract Society - Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

Also, it leaves the matter to conscious, so a physician could claim that administering blood might refused on religious grounds.

 

[geauxtohell]

​

This hypothetical is falling apart.

What small town are we talking about.

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

Eventually we will move to the morphine hypothetical.

 

[Missourian]

Seriously...I reject the premise of this hypothetical.

I assume we are talking about reasonable people here.

A reasonable person would foresee the difficulties and make changes/arraignments to avoid those pitfalls.

 

[Dr.House]

​

This hypothetical is falling apart.

What small town are we talking about.

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?

 

[Amelia]

Well I for one thought it was an interesting example. Smart to find a way to shift the debate from abortion.

I would hope that once the doctor converted, he would be honest about his inability to continue to meet the expectations of the community and would help the community make other arrangements. I'm not prepared to judge his actions in the interim and am uncomfortable with my own unwillingness to commit here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A ‘right,’ no, since there’s no government involvement – but an obligation to save a life, most definitely.

Concerning government involvement, the First Amendment right pertains to the doctor, not the patient; the doctor’s right to not be compelled to be personally subjected to a blood transfusion does not extend to the patient. The patient decides whether or not to have a given treatment, not the doctor based on the physician’s religious beliefs. And if the patient is unable to communicate his wishes, the treatment is administered – the doctor’s religious convictions are irrelevant.

Title VII states: "Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer."

And having the employer’s (hospital’s) patients dying can certainly be construed as an undue hardship for the employer, not to mention the patient.

The scenario is outrageous and offensive to the good people in the medical profession. I guess we will be seeing a lot of bigoted anti-religious since we have a Mormon running for president.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Missourian]

Hypothetical

An employee at a Hormel production facility in a small town falls into the pork fat separator and he suffers multiple life threatening lacerations.

The only doctor within 1000 miles is a Muslim doctor, and he refuses to treat the man, as he is covered inside and out with pork fat.

The man dies while nurses frantically attempt to cleanse the wounds.

Obviously, because of this theoretical situation, no practicing Muslims can be doctors.

 

[Ravi]

Hypothetical

An employee at a Hormel production facility in a small town falls into the pork fat separator and he suffers multiple life threatening lacerations.

The only doctor within 1000 miles is a Muslim doctor, and he refuses to treat the man, as he is covered inside and out with pork fat.

The man dies while nurses frantically attempt to cleanse the wounds.

Obviously, because of this theoretical situation, no practicing Muslims can be doctors.

The one in your example shouldn't be.

 

[Missourian]

Hypothetical

An employee at a Hormel production facility in a small town falls into the pork fat separator and he suffers multiple life threatening lacerations.

The only doctor within 1000 miles is a Muslim doctor, and he refuses to treat the man, as he is covered inside and out with pork fat.

The man dies while nurses frantically attempt to cleanse the wounds.

Obviously, because of this theoretical situation, no practicing Muslims can be doctors.

The one in your example shouldn't be.

If we shouldn't accommodate Muslims here, why should we accommodate them anywhere else?

 

[Ravi]

Hypothetical

An employee at a Hormel production facility in a small town falls into the pork fat separator and he suffers multiple life threatening lacerations.

The only doctor within 1000 miles is a Muslim doctor, and he refuses to treat the man, as he is covered inside and out with pork fat.

The man dies while nurses frantically attempt to cleanse the wounds.

Obviously, because of this theoretical situation, no practicing Muslims can be doctors.

The one in your example shouldn't be.

If we shouldn't accommodate Muslims here, why should we accommodate them anywhere else?

You're barking up the wrong tree. If someone won't do their job they should find another job.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Physicians, as I understand it, are required to give life saving services to all patients who are presented to them. If they allow the patient to die due to negligent behavior they are liable for the death. Hospitals cannot send patients away who need life saving care for any reason.

They agree to perform life saving services when they become medical professionals. They do not agree to give any and all potential medical services that are available today or may become available throughout their professional careers.

In re providing life saving services, hell, when I was in the Coast Guard and had been trained in CPR and first aid, I was told that if I was seen driving by an accident and did not stop to render aid, I could be held liable for the consequences. I believe though that those laws have changed in the last thirty years.

Immie

 

[Missourian]

The one in your example shouldn't be.

If we shouldn't accommodate Muslims here, why should we accommodate them anywhere else?

You're barking up the wrong tree. If someone won't do their job they should find another job.

I see it differently. A Jehovah's Witness can be a doctor without ever being put in a life or death blood transfusion situation and a Muslim can be a doctor without ever facing the life or death "man dipped in pork fat" scenario.

And neither of these has a thing to do with the non-life-or-death of the patient, Plan B decision.