People under that government's rule choose to give them the powers they express in democratic nations.
The tyranny of majority is still an issue is my mind. Yes, 2/3 majority in the senate, checks and balances, vetos, and everything can all improve the tyranny(or it could make it worse) but it still results in unjust actions.
For example I will use the rights of homosexuals. Many people will agree that there rights are wrongly limited. Just because many people believe they shouldn't have these rights does not justify them not having these rights. The majority should not be able to make decisions for the minority that don't involve or effect the majority.
Quote from Zith »
The choice is always there, and you're missing something about land property - you never own the land. You're using it it by leave of the government, which is a major part of the idea of eminent domain. However, you're free to take the house itself and all the rest of your property with you.
Yes, you are correct. I would still say this does not justify government rule outside the protection of individual rights.
Funny. I initially had pointed out exactly what I was referring to, but I took those comments out because I thought it would be snotty to do so. Turns out it genuinely would have been helpful.
Strawmanning is stating a person's argument in a different way than what they actually said and then attempting to refute it. You did this by saying I claimed everyone who doesn't support universal health care is full of crap when I clearly did not.
That was a mistake on my part, when I read it I thought you were saying that people who don't support universal health care are full of crap.
Quote from Kraj »
I mispoke when I referred to poisoning the well. The other fallacy you used was bifurcation/false dilemma, where two options are presented as the only possibilities. You did this when you said either taxing for health care is a criminal act or individuals within the government are superior to those outside of it.
I was saying that those are the only two options, I just forgot to show the logic until later(which I did).
Quote from Kraj »
Actually no that is not correct. A government is an entity. True, it is composed of the individuals who run it and the law that defines it, but it is seperate and distinct from those individuals as well. For example, the President of the United States has the power to veto a bill, not George Bush. When George Bush is no longer the President, he can no longer veto bills. In the same token, when the IRS collects taxes the IRS is collecting taxes, not Kevin Brown (Commissioner of the IRS) or the clerks who process your checks or the Congressmen who approve the budget.
If me and some of my friends get together and create our own group/entity, we still do not have have any special rights that an individual wouldn't have. Why shouldn't the same apply to a government entity? Really an entity is the same thing as a collection of individuals. There's nothing special in the fact that it's an entity.
George Bush does have the power to veto a bill, just for a certain amount of time(until his term as president ends).
George Bush=The President. The President=Power to veto bills, thus George Bush=Power to veto bills. Once Bush is no longer the president, he will no longer have the power to veto bills.
Quote from Kraj »
And once again, the government is not violating your rights. If the citizens of a country give the government the right to collect taxes, the citizens lose the right to not pay taxes. The government is not violating your rights, you gave them up.
Really most of this debate relies on the question that I asked earlier:
Quote from Evan »
What do you believe the purpose of government is? If it is almost any other reason then protecting the rights of the individual, it is violating the rights of the individual most likely.
Quote from Kraj »
Granted. But that system is simply not feasible. Like I said before, many government services are in the public interest whether or not you're personally affected by them. The government collects taxes to pay for police and fire departments and road crews and so on because if you give people the choice to opt out of paying for these things, most people will. And then the people smart enough to realize that such things do need to be done and are worth paying for get screwed. The framers of the Constitution understood this, so they took that choice away to keep the stupid people from screwing the system up.
I know that system is not feasible, I was offering it as the only possible way to have a government that does certain actions in the name of "public interest" without violating the rights of the individual.
I would debate that many of these things are not in the public interest, namely health care. The government tends to be very inefficient and wasteful. Maximum personal freedom and lower taxes are in the public interest. Health care problems would not be nearly as large of a problem if the government wasn't spending so much money on programs in the name of "public interest".
Quote from Kraj »
To put it another way, there is a constant tension between the rights of different individuals and entities. Many laws could be described as codifying the priority given to various rights. For example, the Bill of Rights and subsequent Ammendments guarantee certain individual rights are placed on a higher priority than any other individual's or entity's rights. On the flip side, the Constitution defines rights of the Federal and State governments that are a higher priority than individual rights. In this case, the government's right to collect taxes is a higher priority than your right not pay them. A violation of rights only cocurs when a right that enjoys a higher priority is rejected in favor of a lesser right, such as when the right to freedom of expression is curtailed in favor of the right to not be exposed to, say, crude humor. Another example would be a corporation's right (and responsibility, I ight add) to maximize its profits has a lower legal priority than an individual's right to receive a minimum level of compensation. Favoring the former over the latter is a violation of the individual's rights. But an individual's right to maximize their earnings is not a higher legal priority than a corporation's right to maximize profits, so if the corporation pays the individual less than the individual think he or she is worth, that's not a violation of their rights.
I still say that entity is just a different way for refering to a collection of individuals. It is in everyone's interest to just protect the rights of the individual. You said that "an individual's right to maximize their earnings is not a higher legal priority than a corporation's right to maximize profits". An individual does not have the right to just maximize their earnings. They have the right to maximize their earnings without violating the rights of others, including corporations, because a corporation is just a group of individuals.
Quote from Kraj »
As far as being born into the country, well if you don't like the rules you are welcome to sell your property and move somewhere else. You are also welcome to do your best to change the rules to suit you. But tossing out accusations of criminality at the rules is pointless, ineffective, and falacious.
This also goes back to what the purpose of the government is, which I asked earlier.
Quote from Kraj »
Indeed, which is why we have elected officials rather than a pure democracy, a Bill of Rights and legal rules that offer equal protection to both the majority and minority regardless of what the majority has to say about the matter, etc.
I definitely agree on the fact about equal protection. The fact is that we have let democracy violate the rights of everyone, even though equally, which is still leads to tyranny of the majority.
Quote from Kraj »
That's a reasonable position, but it's also a slipperly slope. For the most part, in practical application this standard would probably be fine. But it would also lead to situations like the one that occured in the original case under discussion, where a doctor acted highly inappropriately. So you end up with the classic political dilemma of whether to create restrictions in a best effort to eliminate a small but significant number of such occurances, versus tightening the bureaucratic noose over the reasonable majority.
"Highly inappropriately" is your opinion and you shouldn't be able to force that opinion onto the doctor unless your his employer. And what you did here, isn't that an example of bifurcation. You said you have to either create restrictions on doctors to eliminate these occurances or tighten the bureaucratic noose over the reasonable majority. Allowing the doctor to not provide this treatment lets the doctor exercise his free will, but it does nothing to the rest of people.
And I'm sorry if my debate seems to be changing a lot as I go on, as my beliefs have also been changing. I just turned 16 and am just beginning to shape my political beliefs.
Absolutely. At that level of pay and that high level of profession, that doctor's paid time is for him to act as a tool, conduit, etc., for medical advice and medical treatment.
This is not only ridiculous, not based on anything at all, and unreasonable to apply, but also not in the public's interest(usually things that are based off of no principle whatsoever aren't). Are you going to make a law that says "if you make over x dollars yearly you automatically sacrifice your rights as a person."?
Controlling the market, deciding what a profession must do because you don't respect their moral beliefs(not to mention you are basing it off how much people choose to pay their doctor), would be bad for the economy anyways and hurt the patients as well. Now patients are gonna have to pay taxes for a program that verifies that doctors don't have rights.
Quote from Denver"D »
Any law that tries to allow a doctor to deny specific treatments should also make it that those doctors who would deny treatment do not learn those treatments in medical school, since they have no use for them anyway. Moreover, those less qualified doctors should earn less and be on separate medical insurances.
A law cannot not allow a doctor to deny specific treatment(by default you can already do it), a law can only say they cannot deny a certain treatment. You don't make laws saying people are allowed to things.
And you learn plenty of things in school that you never use, get over it.
Quote from Denver"D »
Not everyone is qualified - medically, legally - to make that distinction.
Everyone is qualifed to have their own opinions. And many people who are legally and medically "qualified" do think that the treatment is unreasonable.
Quote from Denver"D »
I'm almost certain that a rape victim asking for emergency contraceptives, just in case the act did impregnate her, is a reasonable request.
Many people don't believe it is reasonable. Get off your high horse and start being tolerant of other people's opinions, thinking you have the right to decide what other people's moral beliefs are or are not reasonable.
Evan, if you can't argue your point without strawmanning and poisoning the well then there's no reason for anyone here to discuss this topic with you.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
Quote from Kraj »
Based on what argument? Or are you allowed to draw unsupported conclusions just because they happen to agree with someone who wrote something?
A government is a collection of an individuals, correct? An individual cannot violate my rights, such as taking my money and giving it to another. But you say that government can, which means that you believe that the individuals involved in government are different then the average individual.
Quote from Kraj »
]Because by being a citizen of this country I have accepted to abide by the rules that govern it, and so have you. By living in a society where rules are made and disputes are resolved by a group of elected representatives, I choose to abide by the decisions of those representatives. I have willingly waived certain rights I hold as an individual in the interest of preserving my remaining rights.
In other words, it is not criminal for the goverment to do what those who govern it allow it to do. Nor would it be criminal for you to take my money if I said you could.
You don't choose to be a citizen of a country you are born into, being born makes you a citizen. Now if I had the option to opt out of being a citizen and stay on the property I own(I own it, not the government, so they can't make me leave) then saying I accept these rules would be valid.
Another problem with this is tyranny of the majority. What if 49% of the people are against giving their money to citizens who need healthcare. Those 49% are saying they do not give permission to have their money taken, but then are forced to. This is why charity is better then government programs. Without all the unnecessary taxes for programs people who surely give more money to charity because they already give charity as the taxes are now.
Quote from Kraj »
I never said such thing. I said one individual who apparently considers levying of taxes for any purpose whatsoever to be a criminal act is full of crap.
Technically he's not against for any purpose. He's not against it if the purpose is to protect the rights of people, such as police.
Quote from Kraj »
Yes you have, but that statement is contradictory to your reasoning. No one here is arguing that the doctor should be physically forced to do something they choose not to do. The doctor can choose to refer the patient to another doctor willing to help. The doctor can choose to quit his job. The doctor can pre-emptively seek to change his employer's policy on the matter. These are all acceptible alternatives to flatly refusing care to a patient.
But the position you keep arguing is that the doctor should be allowed to flatly refuse care to a patient. So either you keep disagreeing with points you actually aren't disagreeing with, or you really are arguing that such an action is professionaly acceptible.
People here are saying that doctors have to provide a treatment, regardless of their moral beliefs, or they shouldn't be doctors. I'm saying if someone is can get customers providing the services they are willing to provide, there should be no rule on whether or not you should be a doctor.
I have not been arguing that an employee should be immune from termination of his job because of his moral beliefs, or I would have said that. A doctor who doesn't have to worry about his employer(they don't care, they agree with him, or the doctor runs his own practice) should have every right to refuse treatment or referral to somewhere to get this treatment. For the same reason that the doctor shouldn't be forced or required to provide the treatment, he shouldn't be forced or legally required to refer someone.
Edit: Also, what do you believe the purpose of government is? If it is almost any other reason then protecting the rights of the individual, it is violating the rights of the individual most likely.
No offense, but Mr. Bastiat is full of crap. Collecting taxes to pay for things that are in the public interest is neither criminal nor a bad thing. Access to adequate health care is in the public interest, whether or not you as an individual are sick at the moment. Just like maintaining a fire department is in the public's best interest whether or not your house or place of business is on fire at the moment.
If it is not criminal, then you believe that the government is made of individuals who are superior to the rest of us. I couldn't take your money for my healthcare, so then why should the government, a collection of individuals, be able to?
Forcing me to give my property to others so they can have healthcare is crime done by the government. Whether or not it is in the public interest or not isn't what makes a crime a crime, it's violation of rights that makes it a crime. Also, saying universal health care is in the public interest is pretty narrow-minded. The economic implications(greatly increased taxes) may prove it to be harmful for society.
And to say people who are against universal health care are full of crap is insulting to many many intelligent people.
Quote from Kraj »
Back on topic. There's one point I see you repeatedly make that I think you're misguided on. You claim the doctor is a person who willingly provides a service to a patient, who comes to him/her for care. In the case of a doctor employed by a hospital, especially one who works in an emergency room, this is not accurate. A doctor is an agent of a hospital and therefore is expected to provide the services a hospital provides. By accepting a position as that agent, s/he has every responsibility to provide expected services according to hospital policy. If s/he has an issue with that, it is his/her responsibility to make that known (and the hospital's to identify such issues and inquire about them prior to hiring) before treating patients. It is not the patient's responsibility to determine whether an agent of the hospital will perform services expected at a hospital prior to seeking care.
Actually, multiple times I have stated that I am not arguing whether or not they should be fired for not performing the treatment. An employer should be able to fire an employee for whatever reason they want.
So, for what reason are you disgusted? Like, disgusted the same way vomit might disgust you? It just sorta does, even though you attach no will to be immoral to said vomit or unfortunate vomiting person? I'm trying to understand here.
I'm disgusted in the sense that I find it morally wrong to deny assistance to a dying person. But I don't think my personal moral beliefs belong in the legal system, and that our rights must be protected.
And as it pertains to this situation, it wasn't even a matter of life or death, but rather of having a baby or not.
For as expensive as medical treatment is, I don't think doctors should be allowed to say no to paying customers for any reasonable treatment.
So if your job is well payed, you lose your free will? And not everyone will agree with you that it is a reasonable treatment. If you look at it like the doctor looks at it, he was asked to take a life so his patient didn't have to suffer pain and handling a child. Well that's not reasonable at all.
Ha, pretty much only an American would say that in earnest. Is it such a stretch from the right to life to the right to health care?
Yes, I would say it is. The reason being is that right to health care violates others right to property. To quote Frédéric Bastiat once again(his stuff applies very well to this discussion):
Quote from Frédéric Bastiat »
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."
As Frédéric Bastiat put it, health care requires "legal plunder". Essentially, government giving health care to people would require the action that would be a crime if an individual did it, and the government is solely a collection of individuals, thus it follows that it would be a crime for the government to do it as well.
But that is a whole different debate. But yes, to answer your question, it is a stretch.
Quote from Sibtiger »
Everyone drawing these analogies about ham sandwiches and such is missing the point somewhat. Like Harkius said, a doctor is different from a deli person. What if a young gay man got attacked by a big group, and a policeman, who was of the Fred Phelps school of thought, thus refused to intervene because of his "moral beliefs"? Are you saying he shouldn't be forced to help in this situation? Of course this probably does happen in reality, but it's the same thing, and it's both wrong and illegal either way.
This still doesn't work with the topic at hand. The doctor wasn't objecting or discriminating against the person, he was against the service that the was asked to provide.
Quote from Sibtiger »
It is not your job as a doctor to judge on your patient's moral standards. You are not allowed to refuse treatment for an overdose to a heroin addict, even if you know he's just going to shoot up again afterwards. You are not allowed to refuse to remove the bullet a robber recieved during a heist, even if he's telling you about his next job as you pull it out. So why should you be allowed to refuse someone contraceptives because you think they will do something you find distasteful? You are supposed to offer them the legal options, and they are to make the choice.
The doctor is not judging his patient on moral standards. He's judging the action he was asked to provide on moral standards, which are his own actions and he has every right to judge. The heroin addict analogy doesn't work either because the doctor was not basing it on what she did after the treatment, he was basing it on the treatment he was asked to provide. Same goes for the robber analogy.
Quote from Sibtiger »
There is no moral standpoint that can logically argue that, even if you think the morning-after pill evil, you are responsible for what the patient does after recieving it. If that were the case a gun salesman would be responsible for anyone shot with one of his weapons, a car dealer would be responsible for anyone hit with one of his vehicles, etc. In fact those would have more moral backing, since the person did something illegal with them. Not the case here.
Once again, these analogies do not work. If a gun salesman was told by the customer that he was going to go murder people, then he has every right to not sell him the gun. The same applies for the car salesman.
I'm not seeing the relevance. Where does he mention rights?
Obviously we have life. It's sort of an immediate conclusion - assumption: we exist; conclusion: we live.
Granted, there existed liberty. Some sort of manipulation or oppression had to begin for liberty to leave us.
And obviously, there is property. Anything I claim and keep from others, is my property.
If you read The Law, you would be aware that he is talking about rights. I was answering your question why I don't believe some rights are social construct. But for the sake of this debate, it doesn't matter that much, unless you would like argue that people do not have the right to life, which I doubt you would do.
Quote from HH »
Also, I'm just going to pretend you didn't bring God into this, and assume that your claims and your ethics originate not from some authority but from you. For your benefit.
It's convenient to draw a line, in ethical matters, over how much effort is expended to commit a good or bad deed. But... it just doesn't seem right, don't you agree?
Those are my personal beliefs on rights. As I said before, for this debate it does not matter unless you would like to debate whether we have the right to life, liberty, and property.
And it's not to hard to draw a line. Is someone who shoots someone responsible for that person's death? Yes. If a doctor doesn't help someone dying from an illness is not responsible for the death. The illness killed the person, not the doctor. Do I personally find it disgusting that a doctor wouldn't help the dying person, yes, but the doctor is not responsible for the persons death.
And in this case, it wasn't matter of life or death.
SnoopDogAtog: I am not arguing what the laws are, I'm arguing what the laws should be.
JackintheBox: Right to life refers to humans in most context(sometimes to animals), just to let you know. Saying the pill is not the same thing as abortion isn't really relevant. The doctor is against the morning-after pill whether or not you think it's the same thing.
I was about to write 'lol', but then I realized that'd be trolling. As much as my spidey senses tell me that pointing this out may itself be trolling, I just have to be honest with you.
Rights are completely imaginary. End of story.
Maybe I believe that God gave us these right inherent to life? Similar to Frédéric Bastiat:
Quote from Frédéric Bastiat, The Law »
Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Quote from Horseshoe_Hermit »
Someone, anyone answer this: How in the Hell could an objection to take a simple antibiotic even *be* a moral matter, let alone a valid point?
Maybe I need to repeat myself, "I doubt anyone would have a moral objection to it, but regardless I'm not one to decide whether or not that hypothetical moral objection is valid or not"
I'm not saying anyone has a moral objection to an anti-biotic. I'm saying that for some strange reason someone did, I wouldn't be so self-righteous to call their moral beliefs incorrect.
Evan, the same argument you're making for market forces to shape health care are undermining your argument that doctors should refuse certain medical treatments to rape victims. It is governmental policy, not market forces, which reduce or eliminate access to contraception and abortion services in many US states and counties. If it were due to market forces alone, then more clinics would exist because the need and desire for quality family planning services is ubiquitous and constant.
I'm not saying that doctors should refuse treatments to rape victims, sorry if I am came of that way. I'm saying that a doctor should not be forced to provide a service he objects to. So I don't see how that weakens my argument, I believe the government shouldn't interfere with the market place, so they shouldn't be able to force a doctor to do anything.
Quote from SnoopDoggAtog »
As for the scenario you and Harkius entertained above, I have a hard time seeing how you reconcile your "right to liberty" with the "right to life" and assertion that all men are created equal, which all come from the same document. If you accept that you do indeed have a right to liberty, or freedom to do with your water or electricity what you wish, then you inherently also accept that the people who seek your help and who are in mortal danger also have the right to life. To deny this would be hypocritical; to acknowledge it but proceed with your greed, immoral.
Right to life means someone can't take away this right, not that people are forced to help you. Murdering somebody violates their right to life, not helping them when they have an illness isn't.
But they are no more equal than those of an employer and an employee. An employee has the right to not be solicited for sex by their employer, because of the inequality of the relationship. A similar relationship follows in the case of an expert. You are asking for their help because you cannot make the decision without their help. They give advice not a service.
I'm saying their rights are equal, both have a right to life, etc. And advice is essentially a service. Just as you go to a financial consultant for advice with your money.
Quote from Harkius »
They are entitled to it. It is the Patient's Bill of Rights, and I believe that it is a legally binding document. Also, what rights do you imagine are not a social construct???
I'm not speaking in terms of what the current laws say they are entitled to. I believe the certain rights, such as the right to life and property, are inherent to humanity.
Quote from Harkius »
Are you saying that if I had a mentally ******ed child that I thought was better off dead and I could find a doctor that agreed, I should be allowed to kill them?
This is a different subject, because it involves a minor and a mentally ******ed person. As it applies to this debate subject, I believe that an treatment a doctor agrees to that the patient also agrees to, should be perfectly legal. Such as physician-assisted suicide.
Quote from Harkius »
What about cases where the patient has no choice? Or where the next doctor is hundreds of miles away?
That'd be rather unfortunate, but forcing a doctor(or anyone for that matter) to do anything violates his free will and would be even more unfortunate. If the patient wants to have accessible medical care, then they should move somewhere else.
Quote from Harkius »
If you were having a heart attack and were going to die in the next forty minutes, and the doctor refused to treat you, would you think that it was your responsibility to find a new doctor in that timeframe? Or that it was his job to point one out if he knew?
The life or death situation I'm still unsure on. Does having the ability to save someone and choosing not to equal punishment? I personally can't decide.
But as it pertains to this topic, it was not a matter of life or death for the patient(it was to the unborn fetus though, at least to the doctor.)
Quote from Harkius »
That is ridiculous. You are confusing ethics and morality with scientific fact. In the case of inhalational anthrax, the standard of adequate care is ciprofloxacin. This is a fact. Antibiotics are a better treatment than lung transplants.
Perhaps someone has a moral objection ciprofloxacin. I don't know much about the drug and I doubt anyone would have a moral objection to it, but regardless I'm not one to decide whether or not that hypothetical moral objection is valid or not, and I wouldn't expect the doctor to use ciprofloxacin if for whatever reason they had an objection to it.
Quote from Harkius »
On the grounds of his moral "right"? What if I think that my moral right is not to serve a Jew or a black person, and I am the only person in town that will provide them with electricity? Or water?
Hypothetically, imagine that you live in a desert town with two people in it. I am the only provider of water within two hundred miles. Now, imagine that I find out that you don't pay your taxes and that I don't think that it is moral to give you water. I don't even think that I should tell you that you can get water from your ground if you dig. Instead, I leave you to die. Is that my right? Or should these doctors be charged with aggravated assault?
If your moral belief was against Jewish or black people, then I wouldn't force you to serve them. I'm against the government trying to regulate racism or bigotry in the market place, although I believe the government should be completely non-discriminatory. But a business that won't serve Jews or black people wouldn't have such a good chance of surviving. Additionally, if there was money to be made off of those Jewish or African-American people, someone would probably come to make money of them. And finally, said Jewish or African-American people can get the water themselves, as do millions of other people do in the world.
Quote from Harkius »
This is health care, not buying a car. Certain services are subject to a different standard. These include firefighters, police officers, and doctors.
They're only different if you make them. Firefighters, police officers, and doctors are all businesses unless you try to make them otherwise.
Plus, a little more business like health care wouldn't be bad. Health care prices are insanely high right now.
You can't force a patient to undergo treatment...that's ridiculous. There's nothing so amazing about healthcare that we have to force others to have it. I don't get why the hospital would want to do the transfusion anyways. It costs money and all you're doing is violating the rights of the patient. It's no different then torturing. Actually I would go as far as saying the patient would have been just in killing the doctors trying to force her to undergo the treatment if she had too.
Anyways, it's impossible for personal belief not to have any effect John D. Thinking it's good to treat him regardless of what he thinks is personal belief as well. Thus personal belief is involved in the medical care.
The legally binding parts I was referring to are the cannon of ethics and the regulations and ethics imposed by the medical accreditation boards. So yeah, if you sign up for that profession and become an accredited doctor, they sure as hell can make you do certain things and live up to certain standards. It is part and parcel of being in the profession. If a doctor will not live up to that, they should leave it.
There is also a standard behind that, sorely lacking from your interpretation. A witch doctor who used leeches to bleed someone would be of the opinion that he gave someone the best care, and could find fellow witch doctors to agree. Are we supposed to go "ok then!" and move on? The standard for best care is to provide the patient with informed and legal care that best addresses what they want. That way, it is independent of any opinions formed by allegiance to dead prophets.
The least he could do is when she asked for a second opinion and a referral, to grant her that. He refused, in violation of the rules of his employer, and in an attempt to impose his value judgments on her. Totally. Bogus.
If a witch doctor found that was the best treatment and the patient agreed to the treatment, then sure they should be able to do it. Nobody is affected that doesn't choose to be. And the economy would probably rid of these doctors, or you would know who they are atleast.
Personally I believe a doctor should be able to work without the medical accreditations you speak of, don't go to a doctor without those accreditations if you don't want to.
He shouldn't have to grant a referral, but if the employer said he had to, then they have all the right to fire him.
Quote from SnoopDoggAtog »
It's actually illegal to deny a patient adequate care as defined by the community of physicians in his/her specialty. It's known as patient abandonment, and doctors who have moral or religious reservations against providing a certain type of care are still required by law to refer the patient elsewhere in a timely manner.
I should have said he shouldn't be legally required to. If what is considered adequate care is defined by the community of physicians, then we have let tyranny of the majority to infiltrate our medical industry.
Quote from SnoopDoggAtog »
This is to protect them from ever being in a situation where they are impressed into service for some government or organization which orders them to perform services they find morally repugnant
I agree with this sentiment, but it should also apply to referrals as well. If a doctor finds referring a patient to someone who will do the act immoral as well, then they shouldn't have to. If you believe that a medical community should not be able to force a doctor to perform treatment that he finds morally repugnant, then why should they be able to force him to refer the patient to a doctor that will perform the treatment?(which he may still find immoral because he is enabling the said immoral act to occur) It's the responsibility of the patient to find a doctor to perform the patient if she wants it. The other doctor isn't the one that wants to have the morning-after pill, she does.
I agree that the article has a great deal of bias, but I strongly disagree with your assessment of the relevance of the rape. True, the fact that the woman was raped is irrelevant to the larger issue of whether a doctor should have the choice to refuse care based on moral grounds. However, it is extremely relevant to this particular case and the fact that the doctor failed to address her emotional health and well-being as a whole (which is a part of the Hypocratic Oath, you may notice). By flat-out refusing to comply with the wishes of a trauma victim and refusing to comply with her wishes of providing another doctor to care for her (which she did ask for), he unequivocally failed to act in her overall best interests. He may have provided adequate medical services, but he failed to care for her.
Why? I apologize if I've missed it, but I don't recall you actually explaining at some point why a doctor's rights are more important than a patient's rights.
Additionally, I would point out that the profession of a physician is a social construct as is the doctor-patient relationship as is the institution that license the doctor, etc. So why should the decision to refuse treatment be made independantly of these other influential considerations?
I'm not saying that a doctor's right are more important then a patient's right, they are equal. The fact is that it would violate the rights of a doctor, or any person, to force them to do something. He has freedom of choice and liberty. A patient does not have a right to the morning-after pill, that is a service provided by a doctor who chooses to provide that service.
I was saying the idea that a patient has a right to a treatment and has the right to force a doctor to provide a treatment against his will is a social construct. People seem to take for granted health care, as though they are entitled to it.
What right? I have read this entire thread, and you have yet to delineate what "right" the doctor has to make a decision for someone else because of their moral beliefs? Further, why do you think that patient autonomy is irrelevant? What if you had a mentally ******ed child and the doctor thought that the most moral thing was to sterilize them to prevent other mentally ******ed children from being born? Would you still think that patient autonomy was irrelevant? What if you were a professional cyclist and had a tumor. The doctor tells you that the best course of action is to take chemotherapy immediately, but you have been training for the last three years for the Tour de France. Should your doctor be allowed to make the decision for you on the basis of a few percentage points one way or the other?
In brevia, how far does patient autonomy stretch in your mind?
Harkius
The right of the doctor to not do something he doesn't want to do. I can't force you to provide me something, just a patient can't force a doctor to provide a specific treatment. You said the doctor was making the decision for her because of his moral beliefs, which is not true. The doctor made a decision for himself not to provide that treatment. He didn't tell her she's not allowed to take the morning-after pill, he said he won't provide.
And patient autonomy is relevant, I'm saying it does not supersede the rights of the doctor as a human. You can't force him to do anything because the patient is autonomous. You can be autonomous without forcing a doctor to do something.
Essentially both have to agree to the service. So if a doctor thing it's best to
sterilize the mentally ******ed child, and the child and his parents agree to the treatment as well, then that's fine. The same applies to the Tour de France cyclist.
Also remember that the oaths a doctor takes, the certifictions from medical boards, and being acredited to practice represents a promise to society to abide by certain rules. If a doctor did not want to be beholdent to society and the rules governing the profession, they shouldn't join. That would mean they could not practice, but you don't have a right to a certain profession anyway.
If a doctor really doesn't want to preform a procedure or prescribe a treatment, and they can work out an accomidation with their employer to allow for that, great. When they refuse treatment within an entire medical system and force a patient to go to another, then they have not only caused a problem for that patient, but undermined the entire institution. Hospital systems are licensed and allowed to operate for the public good. If they don't live up to that (and meeting the needs of the patients certainly qualifies in my mind) then they should be replaced by one that does.
Doctors know what they are expected to do. Religious opinions don't make them immune to provisions of the code of ethics. And they are not good doctors if they don't give reasonably desired services to their patients. It is as absurd as someone who took a job as a stripper, then said they had a religious objection to dancing nude, and danced fully clothed on the stage.
Also remember the Hippocratic Oath holds no legal importance:
Quote from Wikipedia »
Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians.
I would also like to state again that I'm not saying a doctor can't be fired for his actions, even if they are based on his moral beliefs. I'm saying that you can't force him to do anything. Of course an employer could fire the doctor for it.
And to say that he didn't provide her the best medical care is just pure opinion. Doctors who feel that it would have been taking a life(which there are many of them) would have felt he provided the best medical treatment.
I'm going to repeat this because it appears that many of you are confused about the doctor's rights. We are not allowed to deny certain options to a patient because we do not agree with them. This denies patient autonomy (the patient must be aware of all their options in order for them to make an educated decision regarding their health care). He also had no right to deny her the prescription. his hands are clean if he does this because she is taking all the steps to abort the fetus. This differs from performing an abortion (outside emergent conditions were the mother is at risk) where the doctor can opt to not perform the procedure and refer rto someone who will. There is no grey on this issue. It's black and white. We spend a great deal of our first 2 years in medical school learning patients' rights, ethics issues, and the law and this matter is pretty cut-and-dry. Once we agree to see a patient we must provide them with all their options and follow whatever decision they make.
First of all, if this were true, then would there be an grey area on physician assisted suicide? The doctors hands would be clean, he'd just be giving her a prescription of a lethal dose of some drug.
Another thing is, I'm not debating whether this is allowed according to current laws so much, but what the law should be. It seems ridiculous to me to sacrifice the rights of the doctor as a person in favor of "patient autonomy". The doctor's rights the allow him to refuse this treatment are intrinsic to humanity, not a social construct such as "patient autonomy".
Some seem to be saying that doctors that run their own practice should be able to choose what treatments they do and do not provide, which is essentially what I've been arguing. If the doctor has higher-uppers then they should be able to fire the doctor for whatever reason. I'm not trying to say his religious beliefs should make him immune from termination of his job, I'm saying a doctor should legally be able to not provide a treatment they feel is morally wrong.
Quote from Argedracorius »
He more or less agreed to help here when admitted her, I doubt he said, "I can help you, but only if my personal beliefs say its alright. After all my ideas are far more important than your wellbeing."
Think of it like this. If you are a doctor and one of your patients is suffering from a bad heart that is causing this patient pain, and the only way to treat it is to kill somebody and take their heart and give it to him so he doesn't suffer pain. Would you do that? Obviously not.
That is essentially what the doctor would feel like he is doing. He would be taking another life so this woman doesn't have to deal with pregnancy. And this doctor isn't some crazy lunatic person, millions of people feel the same way. You believing that the morning-after pill is the best medical treatment for her situation is just as much of an opinion as is the doctor's that it's not.
Quote from Argedracorius »
Does this mean that if a Devil Worshiper was mortally wounded and wondered into a Catholic hospital they could just watch him die and refuse treatment since you know he's kinda their enemy?
This doesn't really apply to this situation. He didn't refuse her treatment because who she was, but what the treatment entailed. Which was in his opinion the taking of a life.
Quote from Mamelon »
I do think that if beliefs have application to matters of treatment and a treatment's safety, that's much more relevent. And private practices can choose which treatments not to use, of course - though even in these cases, turning away certain kinds of people is still unfair discrimination.
He was turning her away, he was turning away providing the morning-after pill.
And to respond to the rest of your post, I'll just say that the rights of the doctor supersede the desires of the patient, no matter how much distress she's gone through.
There is a big difference between having a baby you want and having a rape baby. It should be viewed as a life threatening situation, since alot of women take their own life because of it or at the very least take it out on the child. Having a 9 month reminder of being forcibly violated then 18+ years of a constant tangeable reminder of the act. It is also life changing to have a child. It could completely mess up the girls future. Depending on age, it could mean she drops out of school, gets disowned by her family (rape you can hide, not a pregnancy...and as awful as it is some families still blame the victim), never amount to anything.
Doesn't mean the doctor loses the right to choose not to provide a treatment. It should not be considered a life threatening situation because it may result in suicide. They're two different actions. Sure one makes it more likely, but so does losing your job, etc. The fact is that it would require violating the rights of the doctor, which is more important then the desires of the patient.
Quote from darksponge »
doctors should not be able to refuse performing any sort of operation unless the person is mentally unstable. the doctor has that job for a reason, namely to operate on people. not operating on somebody because you think it's immoral is like me working at mcdonalds and not giving a fat person a cheeseburger, because i think it's bad for them.
Surgeons should never bring their own moral beliefs into the operating room.
Technically you could refuse to give them a cheeseburger, you'll just get fired most likely. And we aren't talking about surgeons, but either way they have a freedom and don't have to perform a surgery they don't want to.
FalseGod: Of course of an employer can fire the employee because of the actions. What I mean is should a doctor be legally required to provide treatment they disagree with. Whether or not an employer can do that is a non-issue, they should be able to fire if you won't carry out their duties.
The tyranny of majority is still an issue is my mind. Yes, 2/3 majority in the senate, checks and balances, vetos, and everything can all improve the tyranny(or it could make it worse) but it still results in unjust actions.
For example I will use the rights of homosexuals. Many people will agree that there rights are wrongly limited. Just because many people believe they shouldn't have these rights does not justify them not having these rights. The majority should not be able to make decisions for the minority that don't involve or effect the majority.
Yes, you are correct. I would still say this does not justify government rule outside the protection of individual rights.
That was a mistake on my part, when I read it I thought you were saying that people who don't support universal health care are full of crap.
I was saying that those are the only two options, I just forgot to show the logic until later(which I did).
If me and some of my friends get together and create our own group/entity, we still do not have have any special rights that an individual wouldn't have. Why shouldn't the same apply to a government entity? Really an entity is the same thing as a collection of individuals. There's nothing special in the fact that it's an entity.
George Bush does have the power to veto a bill, just for a certain amount of time(until his term as president ends).
George Bush=The President. The President=Power to veto bills, thus George Bush=Power to veto bills. Once Bush is no longer the president, he will no longer have the power to veto bills.
Really most of this debate relies on the question that I asked earlier:
I know that system is not feasible, I was offering it as the only possible way to have a government that does certain actions in the name of "public interest" without violating the rights of the individual.
I would debate that many of these things are not in the public interest, namely health care. The government tends to be very inefficient and wasteful. Maximum personal freedom and lower taxes are in the public interest. Health care problems would not be nearly as large of a problem if the government wasn't spending so much money on programs in the name of "public interest".
I still say that entity is just a different way for refering to a collection of individuals. It is in everyone's interest to just protect the rights of the individual. You said that "an individual's right to maximize their earnings is not a higher legal priority than a corporation's right to maximize profits". An individual does not have the right to just maximize their earnings. They have the right to maximize their earnings without violating the rights of others, including corporations, because a corporation is just a group of individuals.
This also goes back to what the purpose of the government is, which I asked earlier.
I definitely agree on the fact about equal protection. The fact is that we have let democracy violate the rights of everyone, even though equally, which is still leads to tyranny of the majority.
"Highly inappropriately" is your opinion and you shouldn't be able to force that opinion onto the doctor unless your his employer. And what you did here, isn't that an example of bifurcation. You said you have to either create restrictions on doctors to eliminate these occurances or tighten the bureaucratic noose over the reasonable majority. Allowing the doctor to not provide this treatment lets the doctor exercise his free will, but it does nothing to the rest of people.
And I'm sorry if my debate seems to be changing a lot as I go on, as my beliefs have also been changing. I just turned 16 and am just beginning to shape my political beliefs.
This is not only ridiculous, not based on anything at all, and unreasonable to apply, but also not in the public's interest(usually things that are based off of no principle whatsoever aren't). Are you going to make a law that says "if you make over x dollars yearly you automatically sacrifice your rights as a person."?
Controlling the market, deciding what a profession must do because you don't respect their moral beliefs(not to mention you are basing it off how much people choose to pay their doctor), would be bad for the economy anyways and hurt the patients as well. Now patients are gonna have to pay taxes for a program that verifies that doctors don't have rights.
A law cannot not allow a doctor to deny specific treatment(by default you can already do it), a law can only say they cannot deny a certain treatment. You don't make laws saying people are allowed to things.
And you learn plenty of things in school that you never use, get over it.
Everyone is qualifed to have their own opinions. And many people who are legally and medically "qualified" do think that the treatment is unreasonable.
Many people don't believe it is reasonable. Get off your high horse and start being tolerant of other people's opinions, thinking you have the right to decide what other people's moral beliefs are or are not reasonable.
I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
A government is a collection of an individuals, correct? An individual cannot violate my rights, such as taking my money and giving it to another. But you say that government can, which means that you believe that the individuals involved in government are different then the average individual.
You don't choose to be a citizen of a country you are born into, being born makes you a citizen. Now if I had the option to opt out of being a citizen and stay on the property I own(I own it, not the government, so they can't make me leave) then saying I accept these rules would be valid.
Another problem with this is tyranny of the majority. What if 49% of the people are against giving their money to citizens who need healthcare. Those 49% are saying they do not give permission to have their money taken, but then are forced to. This is why charity is better then government programs. Without all the unnecessary taxes for programs people who surely give more money to charity because they already give charity as the taxes are now.
Technically he's not against for any purpose. He's not against it if the purpose is to protect the rights of people, such as police.
People here are saying that doctors have to provide a treatment, regardless of their moral beliefs, or they shouldn't be doctors. I'm saying if someone is can get customers providing the services they are willing to provide, there should be no rule on whether or not you should be a doctor.
I have not been arguing that an employee should be immune from termination of his job because of his moral beliefs, or I would have said that. A doctor who doesn't have to worry about his employer(they don't care, they agree with him, or the doctor runs his own practice) should have every right to refuse treatment or referral to somewhere to get this treatment. For the same reason that the doctor shouldn't be forced or required to provide the treatment, he shouldn't be forced or legally required to refer someone.
Edit: Also, what do you believe the purpose of government is? If it is almost any other reason then protecting the rights of the individual, it is violating the rights of the individual most likely.
I'm pretty good, on summer break right now. Glad to see the [T]'s still exist. I haven't posted on here in a few months.
If it is not criminal, then you believe that the government is made of individuals who are superior to the rest of us. I couldn't take your money for my healthcare, so then why should the government, a collection of individuals, be able to?
Forcing me to give my property to others so they can have healthcare is crime done by the government. Whether or not it is in the public interest or not isn't what makes a crime a crime, it's violation of rights that makes it a crime. Also, saying universal health care is in the public interest is pretty narrow-minded. The economic implications(greatly increased taxes) may prove it to be harmful for society.
And to say people who are against universal health care are full of crap is insulting to many many intelligent people.
Actually, multiple times I have stated that I am not arguing whether or not they should be fired for not performing the treatment. An employer should be able to fire an employee for whatever reason they want.
I'm disgusted in the sense that I find it morally wrong to deny assistance to a dying person. But I don't think my personal moral beliefs belong in the legal system, and that our rights must be protected.
And as it pertains to this situation, it wasn't even a matter of life or death, but rather of having a baby or not.
So if your job is well payed, you lose your free will? And not everyone will agree with you that it is a reasonable treatment. If you look at it like the doctor looks at it, he was asked to take a life so his patient didn't have to suffer pain and handling a child. Well that's not reasonable at all.
Yes, I would say it is. The reason being is that right to health care violates others right to property. To quote Frédéric Bastiat once again(his stuff applies very well to this discussion):
As Frédéric Bastiat put it, health care requires "legal plunder". Essentially, government giving health care to people would require the action that would be a crime if an individual did it, and the government is solely a collection of individuals, thus it follows that it would be a crime for the government to do it as well.
But that is a whole different debate. But yes, to answer your question, it is a stretch.
This still doesn't work with the topic at hand. The doctor wasn't objecting or discriminating against the person, he was against the service that the was asked to provide.
The doctor is not judging his patient on moral standards. He's judging the action he was asked to provide on moral standards, which are his own actions and he has every right to judge. The heroin addict analogy doesn't work either because the doctor was not basing it on what she did after the treatment, he was basing it on the treatment he was asked to provide. Same goes for the robber analogy.
Once again, these analogies do not work. If a gun salesman was told by the customer that he was going to go murder people, then he has every right to not sell him the gun. The same applies for the car salesman.
If you read The Law, you would be aware that he is talking about rights. I was answering your question why I don't believe some rights are social construct. But for the sake of this debate, it doesn't matter that much, unless you would like argue that people do not have the right to life, which I doubt you would do.
Those are my personal beliefs on rights. As I said before, for this debate it does not matter unless you would like to debate whether we have the right to life, liberty, and property.
And it's not to hard to draw a line. Is someone who shoots someone responsible for that person's death? Yes. If a doctor doesn't help someone dying from an illness is not responsible for the death. The illness killed the person, not the doctor. Do I personally find it disgusting that a doctor wouldn't help the dying person, yes, but the doctor is not responsible for the persons death.
And in this case, it wasn't matter of life or death.
SnoopDogAtog: I am not arguing what the laws are, I'm arguing what the laws should be.
JackintheBox: Right to life refers to humans in most context(sometimes to animals), just to let you know. Saying the pill is not the same thing as abortion isn't really relevant. The doctor is against the morning-after pill whether or not you think it's the same thing.
Hey everybody! How's everybody doing?
Maybe I believe that God gave us these right inherent to life? Similar to Frédéric Bastiat:
Maybe I need to repeat myself, "I doubt anyone would have a moral objection to it, but regardless I'm not one to decide whether or not that hypothetical moral objection is valid or not"
I'm not saying anyone has a moral objection to an anti-biotic. I'm saying that for some strange reason someone did, I wouldn't be so self-righteous to call their moral beliefs incorrect.
I'm not saying that doctors should refuse treatments to rape victims, sorry if I am came of that way. I'm saying that a doctor should not be forced to provide a service he objects to. So I don't see how that weakens my argument, I believe the government shouldn't interfere with the market place, so they shouldn't be able to force a doctor to do anything.
Right to life means someone can't take away this right, not that people are forced to help you. Murdering somebody violates their right to life, not helping them when they have an illness isn't.
I'm saying their rights are equal, both have a right to life, etc. And advice is essentially a service. Just as you go to a financial consultant for advice with your money.
I'm not speaking in terms of what the current laws say they are entitled to. I believe the certain rights, such as the right to life and property, are inherent to humanity.
This is a different subject, because it involves a minor and a mentally ******ed person. As it applies to this debate subject, I believe that an treatment a doctor agrees to that the patient also agrees to, should be perfectly legal. Such as physician-assisted suicide.
That'd be rather unfortunate, but forcing a doctor(or anyone for that matter) to do anything violates his free will and would be even more unfortunate. If the patient wants to have accessible medical care, then they should move somewhere else.
The life or death situation I'm still unsure on. Does having the ability to save someone and choosing not to equal punishment? I personally can't decide.
But as it pertains to this topic, it was not a matter of life or death for the patient(it was to the unborn fetus though, at least to the doctor.)
Perhaps someone has a moral objection ciprofloxacin. I don't know much about the drug and I doubt anyone would have a moral objection to it, but regardless I'm not one to decide whether or not that hypothetical moral objection is valid or not, and I wouldn't expect the doctor to use ciprofloxacin if for whatever reason they had an objection to it.
If your moral belief was against Jewish or black people, then I wouldn't force you to serve them. I'm against the government trying to regulate racism or bigotry in the market place, although I believe the government should be completely non-discriminatory. But a business that won't serve Jews or black people wouldn't have such a good chance of surviving. Additionally, if there was money to be made off of those Jewish or African-American people, someone would probably come to make money of them. And finally, said Jewish or African-American people can get the water themselves, as do millions of other people do in the world.
They're only different if you make them. Firefighters, police officers, and doctors are all businesses unless you try to make them otherwise.
Plus, a little more business like health care wouldn't be bad. Health care prices are insanely high right now.
Anyways, it's impossible for personal belief not to have any effect John D. Thinking it's good to treat him regardless of what he thinks is personal belief as well. Thus personal belief is involved in the medical care.
If a witch doctor found that was the best treatment and the patient agreed to the treatment, then sure they should be able to do it. Nobody is affected that doesn't choose to be. And the economy would probably rid of these doctors, or you would know who they are atleast.
Personally I believe a doctor should be able to work without the medical accreditations you speak of, don't go to a doctor without those accreditations if you don't want to.
He shouldn't have to grant a referral, but if the employer said he had to, then they have all the right to fire him.
I should have said he shouldn't be legally required to. If what is considered adequate care is defined by the community of physicians, then we have let tyranny of the majority to infiltrate our medical industry.
I agree with this sentiment, but it should also apply to referrals as well. If a doctor finds referring a patient to someone who will do the act immoral as well, then they shouldn't have to. If you believe that a medical community should not be able to force a doctor to perform treatment that he finds morally repugnant, then why should they be able to force him to refer the patient to a doctor that will perform the treatment?(which he may still find immoral because he is enabling the said immoral act to occur) It's the responsibility of the patient to find a doctor to perform the patient if she wants it. The other doctor isn't the one that wants to have the morning-after pill, she does.
I'm not saying that a doctor's right are more important then a patient's right, they are equal. The fact is that it would violate the rights of a doctor, or any person, to force them to do something. He has freedom of choice and liberty. A patient does not have a right to the morning-after pill, that is a service provided by a doctor who chooses to provide that service.
I was saying the idea that a patient has a right to a treatment and has the right to force a doctor to provide a treatment against his will is a social construct. People seem to take for granted health care, as though they are entitled to it.
The right of the doctor to not do something he doesn't want to do. I can't force you to provide me something, just a patient can't force a doctor to provide a specific treatment. You said the doctor was making the decision for her because of his moral beliefs, which is not true. The doctor made a decision for himself not to provide that treatment. He didn't tell her she's not allowed to take the morning-after pill, he said he won't provide.
And patient autonomy is relevant, I'm saying it does not supersede the rights of the doctor as a human. You can't force him to do anything because the patient is autonomous. You can be autonomous without forcing a doctor to do something.
Essentially both have to agree to the service. So if a doctor thing it's best to
sterilize the mentally ******ed child, and the child and his parents agree to the treatment as well, then that's fine. The same applies to the Tour de France cyclist.
Also remember the Hippocratic Oath holds no legal importance:
I would also like to state again that I'm not saying a doctor can't be fired for his actions, even if they are based on his moral beliefs. I'm saying that you can't force him to do anything. Of course an employer could fire the doctor for it.
And to say that he didn't provide her the best medical care is just pure opinion. Doctors who feel that it would have been taking a life(which there are many of them) would have felt he provided the best medical treatment.
First of all, if this were true, then would there be an grey area on physician assisted suicide? The doctors hands would be clean, he'd just be giving her a prescription of a lethal dose of some drug.
Another thing is, I'm not debating whether this is allowed according to current laws so much, but what the law should be. It seems ridiculous to me to sacrifice the rights of the doctor as a person in favor of "patient autonomy". The doctor's rights the allow him to refuse this treatment are intrinsic to humanity, not a social construct such as "patient autonomy".
Think of it like this. If you are a doctor and one of your patients is suffering from a bad heart that is causing this patient pain, and the only way to treat it is to kill somebody and take their heart and give it to him so he doesn't suffer pain. Would you do that? Obviously not.
That is essentially what the doctor would feel like he is doing. He would be taking another life so this woman doesn't have to deal with pregnancy. And this doctor isn't some crazy lunatic person, millions of people feel the same way. You believing that the morning-after pill is the best medical treatment for her situation is just as much of an opinion as is the doctor's that it's not.
This doesn't really apply to this situation. He didn't refuse her treatment because who she was, but what the treatment entailed. Which was in his opinion the taking of a life.
He was turning her away, he was turning away providing the morning-after pill.
And to respond to the rest of your post, I'll just say that the rights of the doctor supersede the desires of the patient, no matter how much distress she's gone through.
Doesn't mean the doctor loses the right to choose not to provide a treatment. It should not be considered a life threatening situation because it may result in suicide. They're two different actions. Sure one makes it more likely, but so does losing your job, etc. The fact is that it would require violating the rights of the doctor, which is more important then the desires of the patient.
Technically you could refuse to give them a cheeseburger, you'll just get fired most likely. And we aren't talking about surgeons, but either way they have a freedom and don't have to perform a surgery they don't want to.
FalseGod: Of course of an employer can fire the employee because of the actions. What I mean is should a doctor be legally required to provide treatment they disagree with. Whether or not an employer can do that is a non-issue, they should be able to fire if you won't carry out their duties.