Doctor religious exemption hypothetical.

[g5000]

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.

But you can refuse to hire someone who won't perform the duties of the job.

/thread

 

[koshergrl]

Gaux is desperately trying to find a way to justify religious discrimination.

 

[geauxtohell]

Gaux is desperately trying to find a way to justify religious discrimination.

That's absurd. If you are going to make shit up, do a better job.

 

[koshergrl]

That's the entire and sole purpose of the ridiculous hypothetical in the first place.

You obviously have a really inflated sense of how subtle you are.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

But you can refuse to hire someone who won't perform the duties of the job.

/thread

That is obviously not the situation. Can pharmacies refuse to hire pharmacists who choose to exercise their religious beliefs?

 

[geauxtohell]

That's the entire and sole purpose of the ridiculous hypothetical in the first place.

You obviously have a really inflated sense of how subtle you are.

No, the purpose of the thread is to prompt discussion about a policy issue.

A shocking concept.

So shocking that many of you have spent more time whining about the question then discussing the issue.

I liked you better when you were AllieBaba

 

[koshergrl]

Pharmacists and ER docs are not interchangeable. Pharmacists are hardly ever dispensing meds that will result in somebody's death there in the store if they refuse to dispense them.

And the only med I've ever heard of a pharmacist refusing to dispense is an abortion pill. Not exactly emergency medicine.

 

[koshergrl]

That's the entire and sole purpose of the ridiculous hypothetical in the first place.

You obviously have a really inflated sense of how subtle you are.

No, the purpose of the thread is to prompt discussion about a policy issue.

A shocking concept.

So shocking that many of you have spent more time whining about the question then discussing the issue.

I liked you better when you were AllieBaba

It's a pretend issue, meant to illustrate a need for religious discrimination.

Like I said, you aren't that subtle.

 

[geauxtohell]

Pharmacists and ER docs are not interchangeable. Pharmacists are hardly ever dispensing meds that will result in somebody's death there in the store if they refuse to dispense them.

And the only med I've ever heard of a pharmacist refusing to dispense is an abortion pill. Not exactly emergency medicine.

And yet we now have an example of an ER doc refusing to dispense emergency contraception.

The two situations aren't the same, obviously. But the concept of religious exception is now in the scope of practice in some states.

So the obvious question is how far does that extend and why?

Another less obvious question is why are some of you so afraid to discuss it?

 

[geauxtohell]

That's the entire and sole purpose of the ridiculous hypothetical in the first place.

You obviously have a really inflated sense of how subtle you are.

No, the purpose of the thread is to prompt discussion about a policy issue.

A shocking concept.

So shocking that many of you have spent more time whining about the question then discussing the issue.

I liked you better when you were AllieBaba

It's a pretend issue, meant to illustrate a need for religious discrimination.

Like I said, you aren't that subtle.

So forcing a JW do transfuse blood is religious discrimination?

If you can't intelligently discuss the topic, Alliebaba, then bugger off.

But stop telling me what my intent is, you dishonest hack.

 

[g5000]

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

But you can refuse to hire someone who won't perform the duties of the job.

/thread

That is obviously not the situation. Can pharmacies refuse to hire pharmacists who choose to exercise their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. If a person is not going to perform the duties required of the job, then don't hire them. They aren't being excluded because of their religion, they are excluding themselves because they won't do the work. It's not that difficult to comprehend, if you really want to.

 

[koshergrl]

No, the purpose of the thread is to prompt discussion about a policy issue.

A shocking concept.

So shocking that many of you have spent more time whining about the question then discussing the issue.

I liked you better when you were AllieBaba

It's a pretend issue, meant to illustrate a need for religious discrimination.

Like I said, you aren't that subtle.

So forcing a JW do transfuse blood is religious discrimination?

If you can't intelligently discuss the topic, Alliebaba, then bugger off.

But stop telling me what my intent is, you dishonest hack.

No, denying a JW a job that he states he will do, because he's a JW is religious discrimination.

I think my statements are a lot more intelligent than yours, incidentally. Who the hell is "forcing" JWs to *do* blood transfusions? That's idiotic.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, denying a JW a job that he states he will do, because he's a JW is religious discrimination.

The OP was based on the premise that the Doctor refused to do the required duties, not that he stated he would do them.



>>>>

 

[geauxtohell]

But you can refuse to hire someone who won't perform the duties of the job.

/thread

That is obviously not the situation. Can pharmacies refuse to hire pharmacists who choose to exercise their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. If a person is not going to perform the duties required of the job, then don't hire them. They aren't being excluded because of their religion, they are excluding themselves because they won't do the work. It's not that difficult to comprehend, if you really want to.

No, I get that. Legally, can a business refuse to hire based on this matter.

I agree that hospitals and businesses should be able to not hire/fire these individuals; I just don't know if they can

 

[koshergrl]

Do you just not understand English, or what?

About a half dozen people have said, yes, the hospital absolutely does have a right not to hire doctors who state they will not perform certain life saving procedures because it's against their religion.

And they are perfectly within their rights to hire them for not informing them they won't perform certain procedures, and then refusing treatment later.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, denying a JW a job that he states he will do, because he's a JW is religious discrimination.

At no point did I even remotely suggest anything like that. No wonder you think the thread is pointless, you can't even comprehend what it is about. That or you are being deliberately obtuse. I don't know which is worse - being stupid or dishonest.

 

[geauxtohell]

Do you just not understand English, or what?

About a half dozen people have said, yes, the hospital absolutely does have a right not to hire doctors who state they will not perform certain life saving procedures because it's against their religion.

And I've thanked the people who have been willing to weigh in on the issue.

And they are perfectly within their rights to hire them for not informing them they won't perform certain procedures, and then refusing treatment later.

Did you mean "fire"?

 

[g5000]

That is obviously not the situation. Can pharmacies refuse to hire pharmacists who choose to exercise their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. If a person is not going to perform the duties required of the job, then don't hire them. They aren't being excluded because of their religion, they are excluding themselves because they won't do the work. It's not that difficult to comprehend, if you really want to.

No, I get that. Legally, can a business refuse to hire based on this matter.

Yes. The duties of the job being understood, you can choose not to hire someone if they say they won't do those duties, obviously. If you were hiring a bartender and an applicant said he would not serve alcohol to your customers, then of course you are well within your rights to hire someone else who would. You would not have to know why the first person would not serve alcohol.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

He did not.

However, trying to compare this to religious objections over religious groups being forced to provide birth control and abortions is like comparing apples and oranges.

Forcing a doctor, as the federal govt, to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the seperation of church and state.

Solution? The hospital doesn't hire certain doctors due to the fact that their personal ideology prevents them from performing all the duties of the job...in your example no jehova's witness who are not willing to forgo the transfusion belief can be hired.

How is one religios exception more morally appropriate then another?

I never stated nor implied that one exemption was more morally appropriate then another.

 

[geauxtohell]

He did not.

However, trying to compare this to religious objections over religious groups being forced to provide birth control and abortions is like comparing apples and oranges.

Forcing a doctor, as the federal govt, to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the seperation of church and state.

Solution? The hospital doesn't hire certain doctors due to the fact that their personal ideology prevents them from performing all the duties of the job...in your example no jehova's witness who are not willing to forgo the transfusion belief can be hired.

How is one religios exception more morally appropriate then another?

I never stated nor implied that one exemption was more morally appropriate then another.

I know. That's why I asked. Hence the question mark.