Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"No" is the winner by a landslide.
To KG, CG, PC, and the others who have the same views as the ones listed...
"No" is the winner by a landslide.
To KG, CG, PC, and the others who have the same views as the ones listed...
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.
"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.
The New York Times editorial is accurate in depicting the current assault on womens 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 Parenthoodwhich provides cervical cancer and mammography screening, contraception, and other critical preventive care to millions of womenare particularly egregious and disproportionately hurt poor women.
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.
"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.
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, 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.
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,