Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 54

Thread: Christian Doctors Angry Over "Conscience Rule" Reversal

  1. #1
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Christian Doctors Angry Over "Conscience Rule" Reversal

    So in January, right before Obama took office, the Bush administration added a clause to Health and Human Services regulations that allows health care workers (doctors, pharmacists, etc.) to refuse to provide certain services if they have moral problems with them. For instance, if a doctor feels morally uncomfortable performing artificial insemination for a lesbian couple, or if a pharmacist feels morally uncomfortable filling a prescription for birth control pills, they could refuse to do so. Now, the Obama administration is probably going to roll back this change, so that health care workers won't be able to refuse service for moral reasons. And conservative Christian doctors are unhappy about, and say that their beliefs are being discriminated against.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...use/index.html

    My own feelings on this issue are pretty divided. On the one hand, these health care workers are private citizens--it's not like they're working for the government--and there's a strong argument that they ought to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government forcing private citizens to provide services that they don't want to provide. On the other hand, I'm equally uncomfortable with rape victims, stupid teenagers, etc. becoming pregnant against their will because their local pharmacist happens to be a fundamentalist moron who thinks that the morning after pill is sinful.

    Thoughts on this?

  2. #2
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,539
    Credits
    2,789
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Plenty of private citizens are legally bound to behave in certain ways against their conscience in their professional lives. If you can make laws prohibiting sexism, racism et al, which force employers and businesspeople to occasionally go against their prejudices, you can prohibit the refusal of medical service on the same grounds. What we call our "consciences" are really nothing more than our individual collections of prejudices.

    The only thing I worry about is the level of care these people will get, and the immoral ways in which some doctors and healthcare professionals might act now that they're forced into giving service.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    452
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I too am split over this one. I am never a big fan of the government interfering with private citizens. For me, if they intend to do so then they need a good reason. Because this relates to an individuals moral principles...I do believe that if you are opposed to something on moral grounds, you shouldn't be forced into it.

    Although I would like to ask, why did these people get into healthcare if they are going to let their religious and/or political views guide their actions? If they are allowed to refuse treatment, then they are essentially punishing people for not living their lives the way the doctor would have them. This worries me. I do believe that the driving force behind healthcare decisions should be patient orientated, what is best for the patient. I do believe that if you go into this profession, you need to leave the christian and/or conservative at the door.

    However, how large is this group of health care professionals? Is it large enough that there might be a potential risk to patients? The link cited that that group had 15,000 members. That is alot. To take something said in the link, doctors will have to take action to help a patient that might not always be in line with their beliefs, that is the sacrifice you need to make as a doctor.

  4. #4
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,570
    Credits
    2,477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Okay, back the train up a little, bub.

    I would not object to a conscience rule. However, the version of it implemented by the Bush administration went way too far, as it allowed the complete prevention of legal medical procedures. Its wording not only allowed individual doctors to not perform procedures they felt were against their moral code, it also allowed entire hospitals and (more importantly) health insurance companies to do so as well.

    In addition, it did not requires referrals to other doctors or hospitals willing to perform the procedure. It made it so that doctors could simply refuse treatment and potentially not even mention all options available.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=98467651

    So there is a lot more to this than merely the concept of a conscience rule.


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  5. #5
    Take orally. no_brains_no_worries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,770
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I feel that it is wrong for someone to refuse a vital service because of a moral obligation. It's not their place to judge or try to force their believe on someone else. Here in Utah, we've had several pharmacists refuse to sell pregnancy tests, morning after bills, or birth control to teenagers. It just seems wrong to me that these people would claim a moral crisis when these customers will be out of their lives in mere moments.

    Allow me to make a dumb comparison: that's like a deli shop owner refusing to sell to Jews because they might have something bad to say about pork.

    However, I do also feel some irritation towards these folks who get turned down by those on their moral high horse. If one doctor refuses or one pharmacist denies you something, simply go to the next one. There would be plenty of others willing to help, so I don't see why people would be so distraught over one arrogant or judgmental professional.
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzy View Post
    He came to the states for his birthday and now he's going home in a body bag. That's what you get for sending your child to Utah.
    Quote Originally Posted by raghead View Post
    i would have whipped out my dick in that situation
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    News flash, guys can't get pregnant from vaginal sex either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmoscheer View Post
    But what is their policy on winning the hearts and minds through forcible vaginal entry?

  6. #6
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,539
    Credits
    2,789
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries View Post
    However, I do also feel some irritation towards these folks who get turned down by those on their moral high horse. If one doctor refuses or one pharmacist denies you something, simply go to the next one. There would be plenty of others willing to help, so I don't see why people would be so distraught over one arrogant or judgmental professional.
    You are a very young teenage girl.

    You have had non-consensual sex (or been coerced into sex) with a forceful older male, say 18, who, during the already traumatic experience, refused to use condoms. You don't have the benefit of sex education, or really much education at all.

    You don't know any doctors except your own.

    You are too ashamed and scared to approach any old pharmacist in any old drugstore.

    And your doctor refuses you the morning after pill.

    Now tell me why you shouldn't be "so distraught".

  7. #7
    Take orally. no_brains_no_worries's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,770
    Credits
    192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    You are a very young teenage girl.

    You have had non-consensual sex (or been coerced into sex) with a forceful older male, say 18, who, during the already traumatic experience, refused to use condoms. You don't have the benefit of sex education, or really much education at all.

    You don't know any doctors except your own.

    You are too ashamed and scared to approach any old pharmacist in any old drugstore.

    And your doctor refuses you the morning after pill.

    Now tell me why you shouldn't be "so distraught".
    Tell me how being shot down by one doctor means carrying a child to term and giving birth. Yes, it might be traumatic and life altering... does that mean it's okay to ignore the problem and hope for the best? If your doctor would refuse giving you the pill, then you should swallow your pride and go to the pharmacy. Or better yet, go to a free clinic and get tested as well as grabbing a pill. I don't believe there are many woman over age thirteen that don't know about free clinics, women shelters, hot lines or websites that are focused on helping them with this particular problem.

    What you've just describe happens to more women then we'll ever know because of confidentiality and women who refuse to talk about such a horrible affair. I know this sounds harsh and I wish I could put it in a better light, but being a victim/playing one doesn't mean you avoid getting the help you need.
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzy View Post
    He came to the states for his birthday and now he's going home in a body bag. That's what you get for sending your child to Utah.
    Quote Originally Posted by raghead View Post
    i would have whipped out my dick in that situation
    Quote Originally Posted by KT. View Post
    News flash, guys can't get pregnant from vaginal sex either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atmoscheer View Post
    But what is their policy on winning the hearts and minds through forcible vaginal entry?

  8. #8
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    I hate to be so brief, but I don't have a lot of time and my question will pretty much some up the way I feel about this.

    Who can't find another doctor? I mean, there are doctors everywhere. This isn't 1850 where you have to go 100 miles to find a new doctor. I do think that it is ridiculous for insurance companies to have the right to discriminate, and that that provision should be rolled back, but I think individual doctors (and, to a lesser extent, hospitals) shouldn't be forced to do things they find morally wrong. I actually didn't know that previous to recently they had to.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Actually, in many rural areas, it's entirely conceivable that there might be only one doctor or pharmacy for a large area. Or only a few, and if it's a strongly conservative area, all of them could easily be unwilling to provide the needed service. Some people aren't able to go roaming from town to town looking for a pharmacy that will sell them the morning after pill or what-have-you.

    EDIT: For instance, I'd really really hate to be a woman in Bumfuck, Idaho or Bumfuck, Kansas or someplace like that trying to find a pharmacist who would sell me emergency contraception in time. We could easily be talking about driving around for hours and hours. Not to mention, if I did manage to find one, having to potentially drive a couple hours every time I needed my birth control prescription filled. And if Bumfuck, Idaho would be bad, how about Bumfuck, Alaska?
    Last edited by Syme; 04-09-2009 at 09:40 AM.

  10. #10
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    If they're working in private industries, I'm confused as to how government can force them to do anything

    edit: although I suppose since doctors have a monopoly over supplying drugs, they ought to cater to everyone

  11. #11
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,539
    Credits
    2,789
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    And like I said, if you're young, uneducated, afraid and ashamed, it's not so simple to just Get Over It and go find another doctor or pharmacist. To ignore the mental duress that some of these young people endure is idiotic and insensitive.

    The factors that cause this mental duress (namely religious education, in the VAST MAJORITY of cases) are also abhorrent, but that's another discussion.

  12. #12
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,539
    Credits
    2,789
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    If they're working in private industries, I'm confused as to how government can force them to do anything
    yes but you're a goddamn rights-loving libertarian fucker

  13. #13
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    yes but you're a goddamn rights-loving libertarian fucker
    well i did edit my post you cuntbag

    (but yes i suppose i am)

  14. #14
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
    yes but you're a goddamn rights-loving libertarian fucker
    Rights are awesome, though. I am all for the rights of private industry, which is why I think they should have the right to not do what they don't want to do.

    I realize the dilemma of 'what if someone lives in the middle of nowhere', but at the same time you have to take into account that (generally) this isn't going to be an every day thing. Emergency contraception is for emergencies, which, by definition, aren't what usually happen.

    I mean, in the scenario you described gwahir, someone who is poorly educated may not know what to do and may be in trouble, but I don't think we should write policy to the lowest common denominator. I think it is safe to say that, in common scenarios, someone who really needs contraception will know how to get it, do whatever they have to do to get it, and then get it. Bad things are going to happen, but I don't think it is worth alienating an entire group of people in an integral industry just for a few obscure 'but what ifs'. I mean, seriously, how many fundamentalist christian doctors can there be?

  15. #15
    feel like funkin' it up gwahir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    margaritaville
    Posts
    6,539
    Credits
    2,789
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm going to make a thread about rights theory and show all you punk ass rights theorists what's what

  16. #16
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm only using rights to mean 'freedoms positively enshrined in law'. I don't actually think natural rights exist.

  17. #17
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    I eagerly anticipate your thread, and hope we get to speak of the economic implications of personal property rights.

    EDIT: I am speaking of rights in the same terms as benzs, though I do think there are a few natural rights.

  18. #18
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,570
    Credits
    2,477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I'm just curious... had no one read my post in which I described how the law was written such that insurance companies could outright deny or even simply not inform their clients any medical procedure that was deemed unconscionable?


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  19. #19
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    I mentioned my opposition to the insurance portion (and to a lesser extent the hospital portion) of Bush's policy.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    Rights are awesome, though. I am all for the rights of private industry, which is why I think they should have the right to not do what they don't want to do.

    I realize the dilemma of 'what if someone lives in the middle of nowhere', but at the same time you have to take into account that (generally) this isn't going to be an every day thing. Emergency contraception is for emergencies, which, by definition, aren't what usually happen.

    I mean, in the scenario you described gwahir, someone who is poorly educated may not know what to do and may be in trouble, but I don't think we should write policy to the lowest common denominator. I think it is safe to say that, in common scenarios, someone who really needs contraception will know how to get it, do whatever they have to do to get it, and then get it. Bad things are going to happen, but I don't think it is worth alienating an entire group of people in an integral industry just for a few obscure 'but what ifs'. I mean, seriously, how many fundamentalist christian doctors can there be?
    The doctor's group in the OP article has 15,000 members. I realize it's a small fraction of the total number of healthcare workers in the US, but this is still a serious issue, especially since this kind of doctor is probably heavily represented in areas where doctors are few and far between. Besides: If there's not that many, then we shouldn't be worried about "alienating an entire group of people", should we? And of course emergencies "aren't what usually happen"; that's practically tautological. So what?
    Last edited by Syme; 04-09-2009 at 10:38 AM.

  21. #21
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    I see what you are saying, there was a logic hole in the way I stated things. Let me try to fix it.

    I did mention that emergencies were not common by definition, I meant it more as a point of clarification than tautology.

    I don't think that anyone should be alienated for their beliefs, no matter what position they hold or what they believe. Of course, there are logical exceptions to this where one person's beliefs intrude on the rights of others, but, seeing as there there is always another doctor somewhere, some doctors not doing some things doesn't take away the ability of someone to get treatment, it just makes it a little more inconvenient. I think someone having to drive an extra hundred miles is much less of a hit to universal fairness than making doctors do something that they don't think is right.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    769
    Credits
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I think you are severely underestimating the amount of difficulty that is caused for a young person or a poor person who has to travel a hundred miles to get a prescription filled, especially if time is a crucial factor (as it is with emergency contraception). Even then, you are assuming that even if one doctor/pharmacist/etc. refuses to provide service, the patient will automatically know where to go to find someone who won't refuse. One of the things that the "conscience clause" allows health care workers to do is refuse to provide a referral someone who will perform the service. It's not like a patient who is refused service can necessarily just say "Okay fine, I'll just drive over to Dr. Smith in Springville, he'll do it." They may well not have any idea which other doctors/pharmacists/etc. would be willing to provide service, and in a rural area (which tend to be conservative), it's quite likely that they could have a very hard time finding one even if they do spend all day driving around for hours going to all the area's various far-flung pharmacies or doctor's offices or whatever.

  23. #23
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    I think you are severely underestimating the amount of difficulty that is caused for a young person or a poor person who has to travel a hundred miles to get a prescription filled, especially if time is a crucial factor (as it is with emergency contraception). Even then, you are assuming that even if one doctor/pharmacist/etc. refuses to provide service, the patient will automatically know where to go to find someone who won't refuse. One of the things that the "conscience clause" allows health care workers to do is refuse to provide a referral someone who will perform the service. It's not like a patient who is refused service can necessarily just say "Okay fine, I'll just drive over to Dr. Smith in Springville, he'll do it." They may well not have any idea which other doctors/pharmacists/etc. would be willing to provide service, and in a rural area (which tend to be conservative), it's quite likely that they could have a very hard time finding one even if they do spend all day driving around for hours going to all the area's various far-flung pharmacies or doctor's offices or whatever.
    I was not aware of the referral refusal section of the conscience clause. I think that should be abolished. In fact, I think that referral to someone who will should be mandatory. That seems like a fair compromise that allows doctors to keep their personal integrity while also not inhibiting the rights of those who need the services they won't give.

    I will admit I am kind of baffled by the notion that someone wouldn't be able to find another doctor. There are phone books and phones to call around to find what you need. If I recall correctly, I think you have 24 hours after sex before the morning-after pill is no longer effective. I think that gives people plenty of time to make proper arrangements. Of course, there is the issue that people may be too poor or dumb to do these things, but as I stated before I am not of the belief that policy should cater to the lowest common denominator at the expense of someone else.

  24. #24
    McTroy MrTroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    THE BEEF
    Posts
    3,013
    Credits
    1,210
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This isn't the government forcing someone to provide a service. Although the medical system is much like a business here in the US, there are very strict legal requirements that go about it. Not only do you need to have a doctorate, but you need to pass the medical exam to get your license, same way with lawyers needing to pass the bar exam. This isn't a computer shop, or a car rental store, or a bakery, or a lawn service.

    You are taking an OATH and being given a license to practice medicine, the standards HAVE to be the same no matter what. If you feel that it violates your faith to be in the industry, then you are free to pursue another career. Just like the people who inject the chemicals for lethal injection, if you are morally against that practice, no one is making you partake in that job.

    The point is not being able to find another doctor, obviously that is very possible, but as sycld stated, you are also getting the insurance companies involved. So what if your insurance company suddenly morally disapproves of a procedure, and won't cover it? Personal doctor morality needs to stay out of the equation, there are already strict standards set for doctors.
    Quote Originally Posted by DickStivers View Post
    I hope I haven't missed my chance to join MrTroy 4 Life
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I blame Obama. That nigger.
    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    when mrtroy makes a valid point about your posting, you should probably kill yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by djwolford View Post
    This site was always meant to end with a gay gangbang. It's destiny.
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzy View Post
    I don't consider myself a racist, but I fucking hate niggers.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrTroy View Post
    Gwahir and I have this little ongoing tiff. He seems to have that with a number of people who think he is a pretentious faggot.
    Quote Originally Posted by hydro View Post
    I'd rather fuck a child

  25. #25
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Well, if you had read everything I said you would know that I have already addressed your last paragraph. I don't think people should be denied the opportunity to help people through medicine just because they are find issue in one or two procedures. Contraception is rarely necessary to protect life, and therefore refusing to administer it is not contrary to the Hippocratic oath. Of course doctors shouldn't be allowed to refuse abortions if the mother will die without one, but beyond that I don't see any other contradictions. There is a huge difference between being a doctor who disagrees with contraception and being a euthanizer who disagrees with euthanasia. That is just a silly comparison.

    I think the conscience clause can be fixed, and I have outlined how I believe it can be.

  26. #26
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,570
    Credits
    2,477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I was not aware of the referral refusal section of the conscience clause.
    which again I mentioned in my post

    Anyway, the primary consideration here must be that the patient in all cases has access to all legal procedures and medicines that he or she is allowed. The ability for an individual doctor or pharmacist to refuse to perform a certain procedure or dispense a certain medicine should be a secondary concern, period. As MrTroy rightly stated, these are highly regulated professions for good reason; we're not talking about electronics repair people here...
    Last edited by sycld; 04-09-2009 at 11:40 AM.


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  27. #27
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sycld View Post
    which again I mentioned in my post
    Heh, missed that part. I read first two paragraphs then made a post because of them, then forgot to go back and read the rest.

  28. #28
    McTroy MrTroy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    THE BEEF
    Posts
    3,013
    Credits
    1,210
    Trophies
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Also, you posted your message when I was typing mine, so I did not see your last paragraph, because your post didn't exist when I was typing mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by DickStivers View Post
    I hope I haven't missed my chance to join MrTroy 4 Life
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    I blame Obama. That nigger.
    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    when mrtroy makes a valid point about your posting, you should probably kill yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by djwolford View Post
    This site was always meant to end with a gay gangbang. It's destiny.
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzy View Post
    I don't consider myself a racist, but I fucking hate niggers.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrTroy View Post
    Gwahir and I have this little ongoing tiff. He seems to have that with a number of people who think he is a pretentious faggot.
    Quote Originally Posted by hydro View Post
    I'd rather fuck a child

  29. #29
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,570
    Credits
    2,477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    No worries.

    I'll also add that regardless of the contents of the Hippocratic oath, people have a legal right to access to all legal, approved medical procedures. This right should first and foremost be preserved.


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  30. #30
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sycld View Post
    No worries.

    I'll also add that regardless of the contents of the Hippocratic oath, people have a legal right to access to all legal, approved medical procedures. This right should first and foremost be preserved.
    Why is the legal right to all legal medicine and procedures more important than the right to your personal beliefs in cases not involving mortality?

  31. #31
    Senior Member ephekt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    230
    Credits
    204
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Barring emergencies, doctors should be able to choose what procedures they perform. Just as their employers should be able to fire them for not doing their job if they so choose, and patients able to sue them.

    I think it's a slippery slope when we start telling people they're free from scrutiny or recourse if they just claim a moral imperative.

    Edit: I'd like to add the stipulation that doctors who refuse services based on this provide referral to someone who will do them. Declining on moral grounds is fine by me, so long as it's an act of their conscious and not an act of imposing their views on others.

    I'd also to say than any idiot refusing to sell condoms et al should receive no protection whatsoever.
    Last edited by ephekt; 04-09-2009 at 12:03 PM.

  32. #32
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    Why is the legal right to all legal medicine and procedures more important than the right to your personal beliefs in cases not involving mortality?
    Are drugs available by other means? i.e. without a doctor's prescription

  33. #33
    Merry fucking Christmas Atmosfear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,675
    Credits
    2,035
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syme View Post
    Actually, in many rural areas, it's entirely conceivable that there might be only one doctor or pharmacy for a large area. Or only a few, and if it's a strongly conservative area, all of them could easily be unwilling to provide the needed service.
    This is a myth.

    A doctor has no choice but to perform an abortion if the mother's life is in danger (and a prior arrangement has not been made) under "do no harm." In this case, morality doesn't have an effect.

    What you want to do is allow a patient to force a doctor to perform an elective procedure. This is no different than a doctor declining to perform plastic surgery. You do not have a right to have an abortion, nor should you have the right to compel anyone to give you one.

  34. #34
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    Are drugs available by other means? i.e. without a doctor's prescription
    No, but there are other doctors, and if they revise in a mandatory referral clause it will be easy to find them too.

    You guys are talking like every doctor is going to refuse to give contraception. They are in the vast minority. Personally, I think anybody should be able to do anything they want to their body, but not at the expense of the rights of anyone else.

  35. #35
    Merry fucking Christmas Atmosfear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,675
    Credits
    2,035
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sycld View Post
    No worries.

    I'll also add that regardless of the contents of the Hippocratic oath, people have a legal right to access to all legal, approved medical procedures. This right should first and foremost be preserved.
    NO THE FUCK THEY DO NOT.

    You cannot name a single goddamned country where this is the case because it is fucking retarded.

  36. #36
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    No, but there are other doctors, and if they revise in a mandatory referral clause it will be easy to find them too.

    You guys are talking like every doctor is going to refuse to give contraception. They are in the vast minority. Personally, I think anybody should be able to do anything they want to their body, but not at the expense of the rights of anyone else.
    Well, I'd agree with this, but essentially doctors monopolise the distribution of drugs, such as the morning after pill. Refusing a prescription surely is an imposition of the doctor's will over your own; you don't want his skills or expertise (such as when it comes to performing abortions), just his signature so you can get a drug that isn't otherwise available.

    I grant you that going to another doctor is a possibility, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of blocking one person's wish to have access to a drug merely because the intermediary - the doctor - has moral views in opposition.

  37. #37
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    Well, I'd agree with this, but essentially doctors monopolise the distribution of drugs, such as the morning after pill. Refusing a prescription surely is an imposition of the doctor's will over your own; you don't want his skills or expertise (such as when it comes to performing abortions), just his signature so you can get a drug that isn't otherwise available.

    I grant you that going to another doctor is a possibility, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of blocking one person's wish to have access to a drug merely because the intermediary - the doctor - has moral views in opposition.
    The thing is though that they aren't blocked, just temporarily inconvenienced.

  38. #38
    kiss my sweaty balls benzss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,455
    Credits
    43,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. E View Post
    The thing is though that they aren't blocked, just temporarily inconvenienced.
    You're going to have to explain what you mean by this

  39. #39
    λεγιων ονομα μοι sycld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,570
    Credits
    2,477
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atmosfear View Post
    NO THE FUCK THEY DO NOT.

    You cannot name a single goddamned country where this is the case because it is fucking retarded.
    I'll conceded that my statement was way too comprehensive, and I was too careless in wording it. I did not intend to really say any and all legal medical procedures, including elective cosmetic surgeries, could not be refused.

    However, abortions and emergency contraceptives are not elective in exactly the same sense as plastic surgeries. You cannot make this simple binary distinction between procedures that remedy life-threatening illnesses and procedures that are purely elective. I'm not just talking out of my ass here; this question is one of legal debate.


    PANDAS
    If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Think View Post
    Atheists are quite right

  40. #40
    Journeyman Cocksmith Mr. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,835
    Credits
    1,454
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benzss View Post
    You're going to have to explain what you mean by this
    If a mandatory referral clause were added, it their doctor wouldn't give someone a medication they would have to tell you who would, then you could just go to that doctor to get it. It would be an inconvenience for the patient, but not a massive one and certainly not one greater than impugning the personal integrity of the doctor.

Similar Threads

  1. Can't Spell "Stink" Without "Ink"
    By Cruz_15 in forum Video Vault
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 04:48 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 09:44 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •