Doctor religious exemption hypothetical.

[gxnelson]

Hey guys. Just ignore Cecilie. It's what I do.

 

[BDBoop]

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?

My dad covered the ER for 25 years. He was the only one on call. As stated; small town.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I suspect there are very few conservatives, if any, who would support allowing any medical professional to not save lives for religious reasons.

One would hope so.

It was an interesting hypothetical though.

No, it was retarded . . . just like the anti-religious bigots jumping all over it like maggots on rotted meat.

Still can't address the hypothetical, huh?

The poster is too angry and thus incapable of addressing any topic in a constructive manner.

 

[BDBoop]

I suspect there are very few conservatives, if any, who would support allowing any medical professional to not save lives for religious reasons.

One would hope so.

No, it was retarded . . . just like the anti-religious bigots jumping all over it like maggots on rotted meat.

Still can't address the hypothetical, huh?

The poster is too angry and thus incapable of addressing any topic in a constructive manner.

Yeah, she's stuck on stupid, and not afraid to show it.

 

[gxnelson]

I suspect there are very few conservatives, if any, who would support allowing any medical professional to not save lives for religious reasons.

One would hope so.

Still can't address the hypothetical, huh?

The poster is too angry and thus incapable of addressing any topic in a constructive manner.

Yeah, she's stuck on stupid, and not afraid to show it.

She's been stuck on stupid for a very long time.

 

[BDBoop]

One would hope so.



The poster is too angry and thus incapable of addressing any topic in a constructive manner.

Yeah, she's stuck on stupid, and not afraid to show it.

She's been stuck on stupid for a very long time.

Yup, coming up on four years.

Her stupid show was probably airing somewhere else before here.

 

[Clementine]

You should know this dr. Geauxtohell

"The Hippocratic Oath requires all physicians to be mindful of their actions, and to make judgments based upon what they know to be right"

I am guessing he/she is comparing a doctor refusing a life saving blood transfusion with a doctor giving a morning after pill. Of course, any doctor should do what is necessary to save a life.

When it comes to the abortion pill, that is not urgent as the woman has several days at least and her life is not in danger.

If a doctor refuses to save a life or has a religion that doesn't believe in modern medicine, I don't know why they'd be a doctor to begin with. Any doctor at any hospital should follow the oath they take.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

My dad covered the ER for 25 years. He was the only one on call. As stated; small town.

Your dad was the only doctor in the whole hospital? With no backup if something happened to him?

Gosh, I'll get right on believing that nearly as fast as I believe every other bit of nonsense that drivels out of your piehole, as long as you'll do me the favor of holding your breath until I do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I suspect there are very few conservatives, if any, who would support allowing any medical professional to not save lives for religious reasons.

One would hope so.

No, it was retarded . . . just like the anti-religious bigots jumping all over it like maggots on rotted meat.

Still can't address the hypothetical, huh?

The poster is too angry and thus incapable of addressing any topic in a constructive manner.

Only a liberal dipshit would assume, "Gosh, I've only seen this person acknowledge what I've said once in several months, that MUST mean I'm BRILLIANT!" instead of figuring out that he's on ignore, and only being seen when someone quotes him.

The only "constructive thing to do with hypotheticals based on false premises is to point out what a waste of time they are. Only someone who's ALSO as ignorant as the questioner would think there was something "constructive" about pretending that reality doesn't exist.

 

[IndependntLogic]

That physician shouldn't even be hired or placed as lead.

I understand the who religious exemption thing. But when you go to a doctor's office or hospital, you expect to be treated no matter what, or at least survive long enough so you don't die.

Simple answer, my brain is not yet fully functional.

You can't refuse to hire someone due to religious belief.

This is a peripheral problem that this issue causes.

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.

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?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Sure, if they only treat members of their own religion.

 

[WillowTree]

You can't refuse to hire someone due to religious belief.

This is a peripheral problem that this issue causes.

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?

 

[jack113]

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?

Imagine America as a Taliban run religion like the republican traitors are trying to create.

Their are many doctors that have sold their sole to these anti America fools and should not be allowed to practice any longer.

Do No Harm Is thrown out the window at the first smell of a payoff in the wind.

I have seen enough of these teabaggers cheering on death pannels and spitting on our vets and cannot see why anyone would want to support the GOP corporation.

 

[PredFan]

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.

I'm sure someone has mentioned this already. A doctor giving blood to a patient is not forbidden, It would be forbidden for the Doctor himself to receive blood.

If a doctor refused to transfuse a patient on his religious beliefs he's liable for possible criminal prosecution. BUT he at least should be removed from his position for being an idiot.

Actually, according to the doctrine up here, it leaves it up to the physicians conscious.

But still beside the point. The Dr. in the hypothetical believes it violates his religious beliefs.

So liable for criminal prosecution? Under what grounds? Why is his religious belief not respected in this matter as people insist it should be in emergency contraception?

Are you sure that is correct? We have had a few nurses who were JWs here before and they weren't forbidden to administer a blood transfusion. I don't know the rules of that religion but I've never seen this kind of thing before and I'm in the medical profession. We have dealt with the most extreme cases where we've had to get a judge to intervene.

I can't imagine this scenario ever coming up in the real world so i can't answer your questions.

 

[WillowTree]

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?

Imagine America as a Taliban run religion like the republican traitors are trying to create.

Their are many doctors that have sold their sole to these anti America fools and should not be allowed to practice any longer.

Do No Harm Is thrown out the window at the first smell of a payoff in the wind.

I have seen enough of these teabaggers cheering on death pannels and spitting on our vets and cannot see why anyone would want to support the GOP corporation.

what does "sole" mean? Is it hypothetical spelling? Provide proof that "do no harm" has been thrown out the window. Provide proof that "teabaggers" aka homosexual men have been cheering on death panels.. why would homosexual men want death panels for god's sake? Why would homosexual men spit on vets? Amazing We really need some substantiation of your claims before we can allow you to bash homosexual men.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Sure, if they only treat members of their own religion.

or they could be psychiatrists for democrats.

 

[Care4all]

I think nurses can transfuse, but only on a doctor's orders.

Does the doctor have to be present to give orders, or could the nurse take orders over the phone from a doctor?

Telephone orders can be given.

what makes you say that? I worked in a blood bank at jackson memorial hospital for a few years and no blood went out for a patient without WRITTEN request from the Doctor...?

 

[WillowTree]

Does the doctor have to be present to give orders, or could the nurse take orders over the phone from a doctor?

Telephone orders can be given.

what makes you say that? I worked in a blood bank at jackson memorial hospital for a few years and no blood went out for a patient without WRITTEN request from the Doctor.

kinda backwoodsy huh?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Having read all eight pages I must say I'm shocked by the amount of abject stupidity posted in response to the OP.

That said, the MD has a duty to perform life saving treatment within his/her means sans a DNR or other communication from the patient.

Failure to provide life saving treatment based on religious convictions is a breach of the duty of an MD trained & hired to provide such treatments. In the hypothetical, the action (or inaction) of the MD is an example of Gross Negligence in Homicide (defined: aggravated or culpable negligence constituting such a departure from the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful man under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life).

Since the hiring authority has no legal right to ask a prospective employee (the hypothetical MD) any question related his his religious beliefs the harm caused is entirely born by the MD's breach of duty.

Will the MD be prosecuted for a criminal law violation? Sadly, that depends on the prosecutor's office, some of which operate on the guiding premise of "how will this effect me?". However, the answer in the civil law is quite easy. The MD in question will pay dearly - not knowing how much his insurance will pay I suspect the deceased's family and the attorney they hire will sue for a considerable sum, one way above and beyond the MD's insurance limits.

Will his license to practice medicine be suspended or revoked? I would hope so.

Will another employer hire said MD? Doubtful, why would any sensible employer hire such a person?

 

[geauxtohell]

No, it was retarded . . . just like the anti-religious bigots jumping all over it like maggots on rotted meat.

I'm pretty sure it looks like you're trying to instigate something with someone who continues to respond to you in a courteous manner. He said it was hypothetical.

I'm sure you're aware that many conservatives argue against things such as gay marriage because of the doomsday possibilities that may result - like bestiality and incestual marriage. And I never, ever see them act courteous and say it's just hypothetical.

And those scenarios are equally ridiculous and improbable.

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?

Considering that your own paraphilia only recently been moved off the "deviant behavior" list, I am surprised you have the compunction to throw stones.