Should medical personnel be able to refuse to do their job based on religious beliefs

[koshergrl]

I'm not sure you need a doctor for a blood transfusion...aside from giving the order for it.

 

[nitroz]

"No" is the winner by a landslide.

To KG, CG, PC, and the others who have the same views as the ones listed...

 

[frazzledgear]

The polls results are appalling and apparently quite a few people do not understand what is meant by "religious freedom" and in fact oppose it. This just isn't rocket science. Your personal religious beliefs can never supersede my own and mine can never supersede yours. The only time it gets murky is when their are minors involved -so let's keep it to adults.

That means I can't force YOU to have any medical procedure that violates YOUR religious beliefs -but -and apparently more than few don't get this part - you can't force me to perform any medical procedure that violates MY religious beliefs. You want that procedure, go see someone else. The fact you don't share my religious beliefs doesn't suddenly mean my own religious beliefs become subservient to yours and you get to force me to be your slave and forfeit my religious beliefs. But at least keep the discussion to real possibilities. Absolutely NO doctor believes treating a woman with an ectopic pregnancy is going to violate their religious beliefs -because by definition that pregnancy is not viable and cannot be saved. At that point, it is a matter of saving the woman's life. If a patient is not a Jehovah's Witness opposed to a blood transfusion and in need of one, a doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness who will not perform blood transfusion must and does make sure another doctor immediately takes over that part of their care. Fat chance you will ever find a Jehovah's Witness as the ER doctor for just that reason.

There are doctors with specific religious beliefs regarding medical care like 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses and they do not seek employment somewhere that is going to provide conflicts with those beliefs or put patients who do not share those religious beliefs at increased risk. These are the doctors that 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses go to see knowing they are in the care of a physician who shares their own religious beliefs and will not make an issue out of their refusal to have certain kinds of treatments.

So do 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses have a right to seek out doctors who share their own religious beliefs? Put THAT question up on your poll. Because if they have a right to see doctors who share their own religious beliefs, it means those doctors have a right to make their own medical practice conform to their religious beliefs and refuse to perform any procedure that violates their own personal religious beliefs as well.

This is an incomplete story at the best -because no doctor would be in the emergency room treating rape victims but refusing emergency contraception unless she chose to go see a doctor in a religious hospital where it was an unacceptable practice. An ER doctor who was personally opposed to such treatment would not and cannot prevent someone from getting it from someone else and except for a religious hospital where it was not acceptable practice, would have merely asked another doctor to handle it.

Believe it or not, medical schools have figured out LONG AGO how to properly train doctors who have specific religious beliefs and hospitals have figured out the specific privileges granted to such doctors so that all the needs of any patient requesting or requiring treatment that might violate the religious beliefs of a specific doctor are still met. And everybody's rights get upheld.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"No" is the winner by a landslide.

To KG, CG, PC, and the others who have the same views as the ones listed...

Dear Left-Wingers:

Keep your fucking government out of our religion . . . and our healthcare.

 

[frazzledgear]

"No" is the winner by a landslide.

To KG, CG, PC, and the others who have the same views as the ones listed...

Well, too bad for you atheists that none of those "no's" are sitting on the Supreme Court which came to totally different opinions about those Constitutional rights long ago and upheld at every turn. Did you know the founders wrote up the Bill of Rights as the way of insuring these were NOT something to be determined by popular opinion and OFF THE TABLE when it came to laws and politics? Even the raging liberals on the Supreme Court won't pretend they have a "right" to force people to stop living in accordance with their religious beliefs.

I'm sorry, are you under some bizarre impression that if a doctor lives in accordance with his or her own religious beliefs that is somehow violating some "right" of YOURS? What right would that be? You think if you want a specific pill or some specific procedure that violates the religious beliefs of that doctor, it turns a doctor into your personal slave and strips them of their 1st Amendment rights or something? What part of the Constitution declares that people have the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs which also includes the right to live in accordance with those beliefs -except when a liberal decides it is inconvenient for them? Where did liberals ever get the idea that if others choose to exercise their rights in a way they disapprove of, it means they have a right to strip that person of their rights?

No one who doesn't understand how to uphold and protect everyone's EQUAL RIGHTS all at the same time -should EVER be allowed in a position to fuck it up for us then, huh. Pretty much eliminates all leftwingers in my book since most despise the idea that others who have different ideas, opinions and beliefs are being "allowed" to walk around on the outside with the very same rights you have - when you think you have an additional right to order others how to exercise their rights as you see fit -or lose them. Which is really what this thread is all about -atheist liberals who think THEIR belief system determines whether others are actually allowed to live in accordance with their own and different belief system or not. Sorry, no such right for you arrogant dicks.

The fact a specific kind of medical procedure exists doesn't suddenly mean all doctors forfeit their right to live in accordance with their religious beliefs and must perform that procedure - even though you, in all your "wisdom" apparently think it does. This isn't even a real issue whatsoever. A phony story is being used for the phony, bullshit pretense we must now strip all physicians of their 1st Amendment rights and forced to do whatever an atheist wants instead. Because atheists not only think their belief system gets to rule -they DEMAND it rule and reign superior over all others. Or by golly any who disagrees must be stripped of their entire medical career, right? Gasp -that dude refused to write a script for a specific pill!! He deserves to lose his LIVELIHOOD, right? Even though even if this were the entire story, would NOT have prevented this woman from getting it from someone else -ever. Still -someone who refused to violate their own conscience when an atheist thinks he should have and wants to pretend he has no right to actually live in accordance with his religious beliefs -deserves to be DESTROYED and for life! Because that is how liberals roll.


Again, medical schools figured out LONG AGO how to educate medical students who had specific religious beliefs and hospitals figured out what privileges would be granted to doctors with specific religious beliefs so that patients with different beliefs would never be put at increased risk and EVERYONE'S rights all upheld. And just think -they managed to do it all without your two cents.

 

[Sallow]

Yes, medical professionals should be able to put down their feet when it comes to questions of ethics.

While those in medical need go untreated. Good plan.

This is a very troubling and dangerous trend among medical professionals and the lawmakers who enact ‘morals clause’ legislation. And this is more about politics than ‘ethics’ or ‘religion.’

Personally, I think it's troubling to allow religious organizations to be involved in "for profit" endeavors for this very reason. Basically..it boils down to their inability to follow the law along with issues of taxation.

 

[nitroz]

"No" is the winner by a landslide.

To KG, CG, PC, and the others who have the same views as the ones listed...

Dear Left-Wingers:

Keep your fucking government out of our religion . . . and our healthcare.

Healthcare has government regulation and such. What you are asking for will just result in rapid inflation and everyone getting denied healthcare when they need it.

And putting religion back in it's place is not putting government into your religion. Don't forget that the government can tax the hell out of your church and have it go broke.

 

[koshergrl]

There is no "place" for religion. We have the right to embrace our religion as publicly as we like.

 

[BDBoop]

ACOG - Letter to the Editor New York Times

The New York Times editorial is accurate in depicting the current assault on women’s health care and reproductive rights as “undeniable, severe, and continuing.” (The Campaign Against Women, May 20). The continuous onslaught of laws focusing exclusively on denying reproductive health care rights is a concerted campaign against women. These laws are not grounded in science or evidence-based medicine.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) firmly believes that access to family planning counseling and to the full array of FDA-approved contraceptives is a basic and essential component of preventive health care for women. Efforts to defund Planned Parenthood—which provides cervical cancer and mammography screening, contraception, and other critical preventive care to millions of women—are particularly egregious and disproportionately hurt poor women.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, medical professionals should be able to put down their feet when it comes to questions of ethics.

While those in medical need go untreated. Good plan.

This is a very troubling and dangerous trend among medical professionals and the lawmakers who enact ‘morals clause’ legislation. And this is more about politics than ‘ethics’ or ‘religion.’

Personally, I think it's troubling to allow religious organizations to be involved in "for profit" endeavors for this very reason. Basically..it boils down to their inability to follow the law along with issues of taxation.

Catholic hospitals aren't "for profit" endeavors.

Basically, it boils down to liberals' inability to follow the First Amendment along with issues of letting other people control their own lives.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"No" is the winner by a landslide.

To KG, CG, PC, and the others who have the same views as the ones listed...

Dear Left-Wingers:

Keep your fucking government out of our religion . . . and our healthcare.

Healthcare has government regulation and such. What you are asking for will just result in rapid inflation and everyone getting denied healthcare when they need it.

And putting religion back in it's place is not putting government into your religion. Don't forget that the government can tax the hell out of your church and have it go broke.

There's an enormous difference between "You must have THIS level of air filtration in a sterile area" and "You must leave your First Amendment rights at the door". Sadly, liberals simply cannot grasp any concept that negates their ability to control what people think and how they live.

"Putting religion back in its place"? And what "place" is that, pray tell? Out of your sight so you can pretend it doesn't exist?

And no, shitforbrains, the government CAN'T tax my church. Maybe where you live on Planet Moron, the government taxes non-profit charitable organizations - which churches are - but here in the real world, it doesn't.

Way to step on your johnson, fool.

 

[koshergrl]

I think the implication was "stop being religious OR ELSE the government is going to start punishing you". It's a threat, and a glimpse into the religious oppression that progressives are pushing for.

 

[oldernwiser]

Actually, this IS an ethics issue. What it is NOT is an issue of beliefs. Medical ethics should not be confused with personal beliefs - simple as that.

This Dr was ethically bound to advise the patient as to ALL treatment options. It's the responsibility of the patient to choose which option suited her best. If the Dr's beliefs get in the way of that treatment option, the Dr is ethically bound to refer the patient to another facility, or another Dr in the same facility. This was not the case here - and this particular Dr needs to be held accountable for her failing to recognise basic patient rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, this IS an ethics issue. What it is NOT is an issue of beliefs. Medical ethics should not be confused with personal beliefs - simple as that.

This Dr was ethically bound to advise the patient as to ALL treatment options. It's the responsibility of the patient to choose which option suited her best. If the Dr's beliefs get in the way of that treatment option, the Dr is ethically bound to refer the patient to another facility, or another Dr in the same facility. This was not the case here - and this particular Dr needs to be held accountable for her failing to recognise basic patient rights.

Actually, only people with no beliefs at all think that they can just adopt an outside standard of ethics to compensate. The sane world interprets ethics through the prism of their own understanding of right and wrong.

You don't know for sure WHAT this doctor actually advised the patient, because the "news cast" didn't bother to find out. They just focused lovingly on the semi-hysterical mother of the patient, who clearly had more of a bug up her ass about "attitude" than anything else. Do I think she told us the complete, unvarnished truth about what happened? In a pig's eye.

So don't talk to me about "This should have happened, and it didn't", because you weren't there. You're just assuming as to how things were based on the way you want to believe they were, because you want to believe that religious people are evil, uncaring assholes and leftists and their poster children are abused, oppressed saints.

The day a leftist makes an effort to get both sides of the story, I'll probably have a heart attack and die from the shock. And I'd be willing to do it, if it would just motivate ONE of you self-righteous mental midgets to plug in your brain stem and actually THINK.

 

[oldernwiser]

Actually, this IS an ethics issue. What it is NOT is an issue of beliefs. Medical ethics should not be confused with personal beliefs - simple as that.

This Dr was ethically bound to advise the patient as to ALL treatment options. It's the responsibility of the patient to choose which option suited her best. If the Dr's beliefs get in the way of that treatment option, the Dr is ethically bound to refer the patient to another facility, or another Dr in the same facility. This was not the case here - and this particular Dr needs to be held accountable for her failing to recognise basic patient rights.

Actually, only people with no beliefs at all think that they can just adopt an outside standard of ethics to compensate. The sane world interprets ethics through the prism of their own understanding of right and wrong.

You don't know for sure WHAT this doctor actually advised the patient, because the "news cast" didn't bother to find out. They just focused lovingly on the semi-hysterical mother of the patient, who clearly had more of a bug up her ass about "attitude" than anything else. Do I think she told us the complete, unvarnished truth about what happened? In a pig's eye.

So don't talk to me about "This should have happened, and it didn't", because you weren't there. You're just assuming as to how things were based on the way you want to believe they were, because you want to believe that religious people are evil, uncaring assholes and leftists and their poster children are abused, oppressed saints.

The day a leftist makes an effort to get both sides of the story, I'll probably have a heart attack and die from the shock. And I'd be willing to do it, if it would just motivate ONE of you self-righteous mental midgets to plug in your brain stem and actually THINK.

Going back over the news cast AGAIN, the claim is that the 26 year old woman asked point blank if the decision not to treat her for her alleged rape was the policy of the facility or just this doctor's beliefs and was told it was the doctor's BELIEFS that prevented her from being treated.

Admittedly, no one can ascertain the veracity of the actual statements made. From what I understand, there has been no comment made by the doctor in question or the hospital involved.

As it turns out, and after doing my own fact checking, OK is one of those states with a conscience clause in their ethics laws that allows a doctor to refuse care based on their moral beliefs. They aren't even compelled to advise a patient on where they can receive such treatment. Glad I don't live there, and I've made a note to check on my OWN state's laws.

Is it right? I don't happen to think so.
Is it correct? In Oklahoma it apparently is. And, apparently that was enough for the news team who interviewed the mother of the victim and did not seek comment from the hospital.
Do I believe the story? Don't have any compelling reason not to - even if it IS just one side.

I don't consider myself as a "leftist", but I did jump to the conclusion originally that ethics here is the same as ethics there.

 

[Ariux]

one of those states with a conscience clause in their ethics laws that allows a doctor to refuse care based on their moral beliefs. They aren't even compelled to advise a patient on where they can receive such treatment. Glad I don't live there,

You being a psychotic shithead, a conscience clause is of no value to you, heh.

 

[Jazreen]

Ouch! I don't think that is right. But of course, we cannot force someone to do the things he or she doesn't want. This will result into a worse situation. The answer is still in the hand of the person, considering the conscience she has.

 

[chanel]

I'm not sure how to answer that question, but what I do know is that if the hospital is making religious accommodations for other faiths (Muslims), then they must do the same for Catholics and others who oppose abortion.

If a nurse is opposed to giving the medicine, then they need to find someone who is not. And I'd suggest that rape victims be taken to non-Catholic hospitals if they are afraid they might get pregnant.