Yes, "anyone" here including the person in another person's womb.
A doctor who refuses to do an abortion might consider it murder, and thus his hands are tied -- he can't perform the abortion because that would mean murdering someone else.
If you're going to say that abortion isn't murder, then that's entirely different debate.
As I mentioned, that one was a bit more general.
My point was that the oath says that doctors should treat anyone who needs their assistance to the best of their abilities. That includes anyone with a lifestyle, faith or race you might not agree with. Also, this means that a doctor should present all options and not leave out any because he thinks it's unethical.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Have to disagree here too... Bush can say all he wants as far as how it "should" be enforced... but he is not the decider in that matter. When it gets challenged to whatever court, local, appeals, or supreme. The judge is not looking at how the president feels... he is looking at the wording and interpreting the law as he sees. "Bush said it was like this" would never hold on on appeal. Even the sources you cited stated that there has been cases where they are overturned. Sitting president or not.
You mean deregulate?
Yes, that often happens...after the damage is done. I mean, the FBI (under the DoJ which is under the executive branch) can come over, enforcing some executive order and subsequent regulation, following raid guidelines, all within some interpretation of the law. People die, property is destroyed. Then years later some judge says "oops" that was unlawful and declares the action etc...as unlawful and an examination of the law.
What I mean to say is that enforcement of the law is often more temporally and viscerally relevant to our lives versus the arcane law constructed in congress. We often forget the legion of bureaucrats whose job it is to create and implement policies based on these laws.
This "right of conscience" is NOT A LAW. I know that. What I was arguing here is that these "rules" interpret the law's enforcement and empower the doctors and other health care workers as well as other service providers with clear language as to how the laws will be enforced.
This empowerment is not in a positive direction in my humble opinion. It is unjust because it can marginalize people that I believe do not deserve marginalization(I do believe in a woman's choice obvs. a whole other ugly argument often incorporating the potentiality-for-a-fulfilling life arguments).
I'm also aware that a) this situation was some time ago, and b) the family did win their suit. But that doesn't excuse the fact that these things have happened, and can easily happen again.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, these things have happened, and can happen again; but as I'm sure you're aware, people occasionally commit crimes. The family winning the suit establishes a clear precedent that they are against the law. And with this new bill, they're still against the law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The wording is tough. Needed to try it a few times.
It means that if you are a state or local goverment, hospital, pharmacy or other entity, you have federal funding only if you accomodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find morally, ethically, or religiously objectionable.
Why list the first few things if you have 'other entity'??!?
... I'll have to think on this. I'm thinking... it may prove to be a lame law. How could it ever function? It's policing the employing entities. It means they have to accomodate the employees or they don't get funding. That means if I were them, I'd make sure not to have any employees I need to accomodate.
This ends up not being about the employees. I was going to have some thoughts about doctors and abortions and objection, but... it's really not the point.
I'll definitely keep up with this discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
A doctor can refuse patients, but I forget all the little litigent stuff. I think one of it can be just to refer them to another doctor, and wash their hands of the person. However, it's like referring them to a "more experienced doctor." But, this isn't going to help them when the baby needs to be aborted right then and there or the mother is going to die (which is rare anyway). Most, will commence to "sacrificing the baby to save the mother" as a rationalization. A sacrifice is morally justified to save another, when both are going to die.
To refuse to do so, makes the doctor no more morally justified than his anithesis of the abortionist.
That's what's missing out of this legislation are defining limits to health issue, and too abusive. That law is remarkably repugnant and too many loopholes. It should go away, a doctor can play other forms of head games to avoid moral culpability.
Well, I'm torn three ways. On the one hand, the federal government shouldn't be taking in enough taxes (or pretending enough that there isn't a deficit) to have any state funding to withhold.
That's my fundamental problem here, they shouldn't have the power to dominate the States in this way. It's not only wrong because it concentrates power, it's also unconstitutional [Amendment X]. This is the kind of sneaky stuff they did in order to force Social Security down our throats, as well as the drinking age, REAL ID, and so on and so on. The federal government should not have the kind of power it has to pull this stuff off, let alone putting that power in the hands of just ONE MAN alone.
Interpreting this one goes both ways. If the doctors and all medical personnel only have to recommend what THEY feel is comfortable for them, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the number of cheapest alternatives increases for people with out medical insurance and for people with insurance, that their policies are milked to the limit, since the doctor was sure that it would be picked up on their policy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded."
A doctor can refuse patients, but I forget all the little litigent stuff. I think one of it can be just to refer them to another doctor, and wash their hands of the person. However, it's like referring them to a "more experienced doctor." But, this isn't going to help them when the baby needs to be aborted right then and there or the mother is going to die (which is rare anyway). Most, will commence to "sacrificing the baby to save the mother" as a rationalization. A sacrifice is morally justified to save another, when both are going to die.
To refuse to do so, makes the doctor no more morally justified than his anithesis of the abortionist.
That's what's missing out of this legislation are defining limits to health issue, and too abusive. That law is remarkably repugnant and too many loopholes. It should go away, a doctor can play other forms of head games to avoid moral culpability.
Don't forget some states are larger than many countries in europe. Some states (ie. Kansas) would have BC banned statewide if many folk in state legislative and executive power had their way. That means people in the middle of the state would have to travel at least 200 miles (to Oklahoma or Nebraska which aren't very BC friendly) to receive BC and reproductive health services (or abortions just to make make sure this doesn't get too rosy).
In my opinion this is unjust as it de facto imposes pro-life morals and means on people that may need/want access to reproductive services, a service that now in this day and age I feel equalizes women in the workforce and at home. That they are no longer tied to the roles of motherhood and child-bearing but can succeed in anything.
Even during World War II, the government provided alternatives to military service to those whose religious beliefs stated that killing another human being was unacceptable.
The current standards in the U.S. are that:
1)The person must be sincerely opposed to all wars in all forms, not simply the current war the US is fighting, and
2)The person's lifestyle before making such a claim must reflect such a belief.
In my opinion this is unjust as it de facto imposes pro-life morals and means on people
It does no such thing. If you wish to perform an abortion, you can. If you wish to seek out someone to perform an abortion, you can. You simply can't enslave or legally coerce someone into performing services that they aren't willing to render.
And I really don't see why a doctor's choice to spend time and money to learn a trade would grant you any moral right to their time and expertise. Legal right, sure, but this is because legislatures are not particularly constrained in passing immoral laws.
It does no such thing. If you wish to perform an abortion, you can. If you wish to seek out someone to perform an abortion, you can. You simply can't enslave or legally coerce someone into performing services that they aren't willing to render.
And I really don't see why a doctor's choice to spend time and money to learn a trade would grant you any moral right to their time and expertise. Legal right, sure, but this is because legislatures are not particularly constrained in passing immoral laws.
It's a little more complex than just seeking out...and it goes into the whole ability for people to get abortions debate.
Time, money, social status, age etc...all confounds one's access to the service. It's not as simple as a bi-modal, yes or no to abortion.
Even during World War II, the government provided alternatives to military service to those whose religious beliefs stated that killing another human being was unacceptable.
The current standards in the U.S. are that:
1)The person must be sincerely opposed to all wars in all forms, not simply the current war the US is fighting, and
2)The person's lifestyle before making such a claim must reflect such a belief.
Well you've convinced me then. My opinion is swayed. Doctors should be allowed to refuse certain treatments if it violates their beliefs and their lifestyle falls within the bounds of their refusal. (i.e. they didn't have a daughter who got an abortion or something similar)
And I really don't see why a doctor's choice to spend time and money to learn a trade would grant you any moral right to their time and expertise. Legal right, sure, but this is because legislatures are not particularly constrained in passing immoral laws.
If we were talking about plumbers or electricians then I would fully agree. However, doctors are not really the 'normal' case. Doctors get unparalleled access to our most sensitive personal information and have enormous power over their patients. In turn they are expected to act in the best interest of their patients and respect the patient's decisions even if they do no agree with those decisions.
If we were talking about plumbers or electricians then I would fully agree. However, doctors are not really the 'normal' case. Doctors get unparalleled access to our most sensitive personal information and have enormous power over their patients. In turn they are expected to act in the best interest of their patients and respect the patient's decisions even if they do no agree with those decisions.
Which is a fine argument for the claim that doctors can't unilaterally prevent patients from having an abortion. It says nothing about having to do the deed themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which is a fine argument for the claim that doctors can't unilaterally prevent patients from having an abortion. It says nothing about having to do the deed themselves.
I didn't think that this discussion was about forcing doctors to perform abortions but rather about those who refuse to discuss it or refuse to provide patients with the information on the procedure.
I would never want to force a doctor to perform a medical procedure he/she does not want to do unless it is an emergency situation. However, the very nature of the profession makes it a duty for the doctor to provide the patient with all relevant medical information.
I would never want to force a doctor to perform a medical procedure he/she does not want to do unless it is an emergency situation. However, the very nature of the profession makes it a duty for the doctor to provide the patient with all relevant medical information.
What is it about a duty to inform that makes it so pivotally different from a duty to perform? Why does someone else's acquired knowledge give you extra rights where someone else's acquired skills wouldn't?
Because there -is- a difference between informing and performing. One of your options may be an experimental procedure that risks your life, but it also may save it. However, as your doctor, the man may feel that the procedure is something he can't perform himself, for whatever reason. Safety concerns, concerns that he doesn't have the skills to perform it, or the belief that such a procedure isn't needed. It is the patient's right to request the procedure, but the doctor SHOULD be allowed to refuse to give the procedure for his own reasons. However, if the doctor DOES refuse to give the procedure, it should be his responsibility to find someone else who will. His responsibility or that of his employer, the hospital, etc.
Because there -is- a difference between informing and performing.
You don't seem to elaborate in the rest of the post. Or I'm just missing it. What is the difference? Why is "I know a guy" properly a legal requirement while "I am the guy" isn't?
My entire post was an elaboration on that point. Showing you where there's a difference between performing (DOING the operation) and informing (TELLING you who can).
By the way, does the wording also include SCHOOLS? And include teachers refusing to teach evolution?
My entire post was an elaboration on that point. Showing you where there's a difference between performing (DOING the operation) and informing (TELLING you who can).
It looks more like a restatement of your claim. I understand that there's a difference - inasmuch as they're two different things - but I don't see the difference that makes one a legal option and the other a legal responsibility. The relevant difference. Why it's relevant. As far as I can see, you don't elaborate on that.
By the way, does the wording also include SCHOOLS? And include teachers refusing to teach evolution?
Private schools aren't under any obligation to teach evolution, as I understand it. I wouldn't utilize such a school, but I see no good reason for denying it the right to restrict science classes in this way.
Well, if your ethics prevent you from doing something that is totally legal and a recognized function of your job then it's time to find another job.
I gotta go with Ratmage on this one.
I understand it's one thing, if you're working at starbucks and your manager tells you "As soon as you're done making that Mochachino, do me a favour and chop up some of the costumers with this here machete. There's a bit too many people in the building"
Anyone of a sound/logical mind would understand that chopping up their costumers is most likely not going to be a required part of their position as a Starbucks employee.
On the other hand, when going into something like the medical industry, especially after all the time you've likely spent in school studying about your field. You should know damn well before you sign up whether or not you're going to be opposed to any given procedure you might have to go through. And if you are opposed, you should either make that completely clear beforehand to whatever hospital you might be working at, and it should damn well have an effect on whether or not you get the position.
I certainly don't think someone who's morally opposed to abortion in all forms should have just as good of a chance at being a gynocologist as someone who's not.
That'd be like a Scientologist attempting to be psychologist but refusing to perform therapy sessions or give out psychiatric medication.
Whilst I certainly agree that a doctor or anyone should be able to refuse to carry out a required part of their job. I also think that they should be willing to lose the job by doing so.
And if you are opposed, you should either make that completely clear beforehand to whatever hospital you might be working at, and it should damn well have an effect on whether or not you get the position.
I certainly agree with the first part. As for the second part, well, I'd place that in the hands of the hospital. Not yours, and certainly not the government's. I don't object to an employer deciding that an employee's moral reservations conflict too much with the company mission - I object to someone else outside of the company deciding this and wielding enough power to enforce such a viewpoint.
I think I'd essentially agree with the second part, too, then - hospitals should take a clear stand on whether they provide abortion services. I'd just take it in the opposite direction.
I certainly don't think someone who's morally opposed to abortion in all forms should have just as good of a chance at being a gynocologist as someone who's not.
That'd be like a Scientologist attempting to be psychologist but refusing to perform therapy sessions or give out psychiatric medication.
Does that leave anything left for the scientologist/therapist? Sure sounds counterintuitive to call that psychology. And I'd argue for a legal label that clearly differentiates it as being radically different from a 'normal psychologist'.
Doctors - and gynecologists - on the other hand, are known for many, many more procedures than just abortion. Abortion isn't central to their profession. It's just too much to assume that a given doctor or gynecologist will be willing to butcher a baby. There's no deception in calling a pro-life gynecologist a gynecologist - they perform most gynecology services.
What's left in government action is a desire to say that an unwillingness to perform an abortion equals an inability to assist a birth or perform an ultrasound. And of course it doesn't.
Whilst I certainly agree that a doctor or anyone should be able to refuse to carry out a required part of their job. I also think that they should be willing to lose the job by doing so.
Do we maybe agree on the main point, then? Or do you also think the government should have a hand in that job termination?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As I mentioned, that one was a bit more general.
My point was that the oath says that doctors should treat anyone who needs their assistance to the best of their abilities. That includes anyone with a lifestyle, faith or race you might not agree with. Also, this means that a doctor should present all options and not leave out any because he thinks it's unethical.
You mean deregulate?
Yes, that often happens...after the damage is done. I mean, the FBI (under the DoJ which is under the executive branch) can come over, enforcing some executive order and subsequent regulation, following raid guidelines, all within some interpretation of the law. People die, property is destroyed. Then years later some judge says "oops" that was unlawful and declares the action etc...as unlawful and an examination of the law.
What I mean to say is that enforcement of the law is often more temporally and viscerally relevant to our lives versus the arcane law constructed in congress. We often forget the legion of bureaucrats whose job it is to create and implement policies based on these laws.
This "right of conscience" is NOT A LAW. I know that. What I was arguing here is that these "rules" interpret the law's enforcement and empower the doctors and other health care workers as well as other service providers with clear language as to how the laws will be enforced.
This empowerment is not in a positive direction in my humble opinion. It is unjust because it can marginalize people that I believe do not deserve marginalization(I do believe in a woman's choice obvs. a whole other ugly argument often incorporating the potentiality-for-a-fulfilling life arguments).
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, these things have happened, and can happen again; but as I'm sure you're aware, people occasionally commit crimes. The family winning the suit establishes a clear precedent that they are against the law. And with this new bill, they're still against the law.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It means that if you are a state or local goverment, hospital, pharmacy or other entity, you have federal funding only if you accomodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find morally, ethically, or religiously objectionable.
Why list the first few things if you have 'other entity'??!?
... I'll have to think on this. I'm thinking... it may prove to be a lame law. How could it ever function? It's policing the employing entities. It means they have to accomodate the employees or they don't get funding. That means if I were them, I'd make sure not to have any employees I need to accomodate.
This ends up not being about the employees. I was going to have some thoughts about doctors and abortions and objection, but... it's really not the point.
I'll definitely keep up with this discussion.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
To refuse to do so, makes the doctor no more morally justified than his anithesis of the abortionist.
That's what's missing out of this legislation are defining limits to health issue, and too abusive. That law is remarkably repugnant and too many loopholes. It should go away, a doctor can play other forms of head games to avoid moral culpability.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
That's my fundamental problem here, they shouldn't have the power to dominate the States in this way. It's not only wrong because it concentrates power, it's also unconstitutional [Amendment X]. This is the kind of sneaky stuff they did in order to force Social Security down our throats, as well as the drinking age, REAL ID, and so on and so on. The federal government should not have the kind of power it has to pull this stuff off, let alone putting that power in the hands of just ONE MAN alone.
Tribute to Dr. Jeebus
Not a little Sheeple.
Don't forget some states are larger than many countries in europe. Some states (ie. Kansas) would have BC banned statewide if many folk in state legislative and executive power had their way. That means people in the middle of the state would have to travel at least 200 miles (to Oklahoma or Nebraska which aren't very BC friendly) to receive BC and reproductive health services (or abortions just to make make sure this doesn't get too rosy).
In my opinion this is unjust as it de facto imposes pro-life morals and means on people that may need/want access to reproductive services, a service that now in this day and age I feel equalizes women in the workforce and at home. That they are no longer tied to the roles of motherhood and child-bearing but can succeed in anything.
It's not silly at all; it's actually allowed under U.S. law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientous_objector
Even during World War II, the government provided alternatives to military service to those whose religious beliefs stated that killing another human being was unacceptable.
The current standards in the U.S. are that:
1)The person must be sincerely opposed to all wars in all forms, not simply the current war the US is fighting, and
2)The person's lifestyle before making such a claim must reflect such a belief.
It does no such thing. If you wish to perform an abortion, you can. If you wish to seek out someone to perform an abortion, you can. You simply can't enslave or legally coerce someone into performing services that they aren't willing to render.
And I really don't see why a doctor's choice to spend time and money to learn a trade would grant you any moral right to their time and expertise. Legal right, sure, but this is because legislatures are not particularly constrained in passing immoral laws.
It's a little more complex than just seeking out...and it goes into the whole ability for people to get abortions debate.
Time, money, social status, age etc...all confounds one's access to the service. It's not as simple as a bi-modal, yes or no to abortion.
If only life were so simple...
Well you've convinced me then. My opinion is swayed. Doctors should be allowed to refuse certain treatments if it violates their beliefs and their lifestyle falls within the bounds of their refusal. (i.e. they didn't have a daughter who got an abortion or something similar)
If we were talking about plumbers or electricians then I would fully agree. However, doctors are not really the 'normal' case. Doctors get unparalleled access to our most sensitive personal information and have enormous power over their patients. In turn they are expected to act in the best interest of their patients and respect the patient's decisions even if they do no agree with those decisions.
That depends on the amount of control they had over their daughter's decision.
Which is a fine argument for the claim that doctors can't unilaterally prevent patients from having an abortion. It says nothing about having to do the deed themselves.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I didn't think that this discussion was about forcing doctors to perform abortions but rather about those who refuse to discuss it or refuse to provide patients with the information on the procedure.
I would never want to force a doctor to perform a medical procedure he/she does not want to do unless it is an emergency situation. However, the very nature of the profession makes it a duty for the doctor to provide the patient with all relevant medical information.
What is it about a duty to inform that makes it so pivotally different from a duty to perform? Why does someone else's acquired knowledge give you extra rights where someone else's acquired skills wouldn't?
My helpdesk should you need me.
You don't seem to elaborate in the rest of the post. Or I'm just missing it. What is the difference? Why is "I know a guy" properly a legal requirement while "I am the guy" isn't?
Yes, thank you for agreeing! Gynocologists should be forced to offer the option of murdering Americans as a blood rite for the child!
By the way, does the wording also include SCHOOLS? And include teachers refusing to teach evolution?
My helpdesk should you need me.
It looks more like a restatement of your claim. I understand that there's a difference - inasmuch as they're two different things - but I don't see the difference that makes one a legal option and the other a legal responsibility. The relevant difference. Why it's relevant. As far as I can see, you don't elaborate on that.
Private schools aren't under any obligation to teach evolution, as I understand it. I wouldn't utilize such a school, but I see no good reason for denying it the right to restrict science classes in this way.
I gotta go with Ratmage on this one.
I understand it's one thing, if you're working at starbucks and your manager tells you "As soon as you're done making that Mochachino, do me a favour and chop up some of the costumers with this here machete. There's a bit too many people in the building"
Anyone of a sound/logical mind would understand that chopping up their costumers is most likely not going to be a required part of their position as a Starbucks employee.
On the other hand, when going into something like the medical industry, especially after all the time you've likely spent in school studying about your field. You should know damn well before you sign up whether or not you're going to be opposed to any given procedure you might have to go through. And if you are opposed, you should either make that completely clear beforehand to whatever hospital you might be working at, and it should damn well have an effect on whether or not you get the position.
I certainly don't think someone who's morally opposed to abortion in all forms should have just as good of a chance at being a gynocologist as someone who's not.
That'd be like a Scientologist attempting to be psychologist but refusing to perform therapy sessions or give out psychiatric medication.
Whilst I certainly agree that a doctor or anyone should be able to refuse to carry out a required part of their job. I also think that they should be willing to lose the job by doing so.
I certainly agree with the first part. As for the second part, well, I'd place that in the hands of the hospital. Not yours, and certainly not the government's. I don't object to an employer deciding that an employee's moral reservations conflict too much with the company mission - I object to someone else outside of the company deciding this and wielding enough power to enforce such a viewpoint.
I think I'd essentially agree with the second part, too, then - hospitals should take a clear stand on whether they provide abortion services. I'd just take it in the opposite direction.
Does that leave anything left for the scientologist/therapist? Sure sounds counterintuitive to call that psychology. And I'd argue for a legal label that clearly differentiates it as being radically different from a 'normal psychologist'.
Doctors - and gynecologists - on the other hand, are known for many, many more procedures than just abortion. Abortion isn't central to their profession. It's just too much to assume that a given doctor or gynecologist will be willing to butcher a baby. There's no deception in calling a pro-life gynecologist a gynecologist - they perform most gynecology services.
What's left in government action is a desire to say that an unwillingness to perform an abortion equals an inability to assist a birth or perform an ultrasound. And of course it doesn't.
Do we maybe agree on the main point, then? Or do you also think the government should have a hand in that job termination?