Obama to end health-care conscience rights- Doctor, Nurse, Cardinal criticize mo

The Obama Administration is planning to overturn HHS regulations that help health-care workers report abuses of conscience rights and allow enforcement of federal laws that prohibit discrimination against Doctors, Nurses and hospitals that refuse to provide and perform abortions.

This site has videos put up by: a Cardinal (in Spanish and English), a nurse (in English and Spanish), a Doctor (in English) and 2 Med students (in English) urging opposition to this violation of religious freedom and conscientious objection rights.

Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.xaos

Yeah, this lol.

It's hardly difficult to find qualified doctors willing to perform such procedures. Do we really need to give qualified medical personnel who object to one particular procedure reason to leave the field when they are so desperately needed??

Political posturing is all this is.

Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.xaos

Doctors are rich, they should have to help every body...

It's hardly difficult to find qualified doctors willing to perform such procedures. Do we really need to give qualified medical personnel who object to one particular procedure reason to leave the field when they are so desperately needed??

3KindgomsRandy

I have no objection to this.

Next he'll make it illegal for generals to make soldiers kill the enemy.

Oh wait, most soldiers do kill the enemy, even if they dont want to.

You know why? CUZ ITS THEIR JOB! They may not like it, but its their duty to others to do their job. Health care workers that object to doing stuff like this for selfish reasons are ignorant and putting themselves before the health and safety of others.

[QUOTE="3KindgomsRandy"]

It's hardly difficult to find qualified doctors willing to perform such procedures. Do we really need to give qualified medical personnel who object to one particular procedure reason to leave the field when they are so desperately needed??

xaos

Next he'll make it illegal for generals to make soldiers kill the enemy.

Oh wait, most soldiers do kill the enemy, even if they dont want to.

You know why? CUZ ITS THEIR JOB! They may not like it, but its their duty to others to do their job. Health care workers that object to doing stuff like this for selfish reasons are ignorant and putting themselves before the health and safety of others.

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="3KindgomsRandy"]

It's hardly difficult to find qualified doctors willing to perform such procedures. Do we really need to give qualified medical personnel who object to one particular procedure reason to leave the field when they are so desperately needed??

xaos

Realistically, it's hardly like they're refusing to perform heart surgery or something life saving. Your talking about choice, and frankly I see no need to enforce a regulation that requires someone else to accept your choice. Don't get me wrong, I've long ago realized and accepted the necessity of abortion, I still can't rationalize this decision, except in cases of a life saving event. Then they should absolutely be required. But for a run of the mill "I don't want this baby" for ANY reason at all, it seems silly to me to force.

If assisted suicide becomes legalized tomorrow, are all doctors required to accept that? Where do we draw the line?

But technically these regulations are here to enforce exisitng laws, which would mean if Morgoth overturned the regulations we would have laws that aren't being enforced. Isn't that Problematic if the "president" can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to let people break?

But technically these regulations are here to enforce exisitng laws, which would mean if Morgoth overturned the regulations we would have laws that aren't being enforced. Isn't that Problematic if the "president" can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to let people break?

JoeRatz16

Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.xaos

You don't think looking after the well-being of an unborn baby is "health care"?

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

But technically these regulations are here to enforce exisitng laws, which would mean if Morgoth overturned the regulations we would have laws that aren't being enforced. Isn't that Problematic if the "president" can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to let people break?

longhorn7

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

Thus Morgoth (ie. Obama) is an illegitimate leader.

[QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.nocoolnamejim

Considering that the "medical procedure" is elective and not (at least in most cases) a life-saving measure and that, last I checked, a doctor could open up a private practice and specialize in areas he or she felt comfortable in, your assertion strikes me as kind of ridiculous.

By your flimsy standards, a person who wants a nose job should be able to force a doctor to do it.

[QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.Shame-usBlackley

You don't think looking after the well-being of an unborn baby is "health care"?

Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.xaos

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.xaos

You don't think looking after the well-being of an unborn baby is "health care"?

[QUOTE="longhorn7"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

But technically these regulations are here to enforce exisitng laws, which would mean if Morgoth overturned the regulations we would have laws that aren't being enforced. Isn't that Problematic if the "president" can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to let people break?

JoeRatz16

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

Thus Morgoth (ie. Obama) is an illegitimate leader.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.xaos

You don't think looking after the well-being of an unborn baby is "health care"?

"Above all, do no harm"

You do realize doctors take this oath when they receive their license, do you not?

[QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.Shame-usBlackley

Considering that the "medical procedure" is elective and not (at least in most cases) a life-saving measure and that, last I checked, a doctor could open up a private practice and specialize in areas he or she felt comfortable in, your assertion strikes me as kind of ridiculous.

By your flimsy standards, a person who wants a nose job should be able to force a doctor to do it.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

You don't think looking after the well-being of an unborn baby is "health care"?

Shame-usBlackley

"Above all, do no harm"

You do realize doctors take this oath when they receive their license, do you not?

Doctors are rich, they should have to help every body...

cruzer167

They went to school and learned to do something very few people can do. There's a good reason why they're paid more than a guy working at Jack in the Box. You could always stop holding your hand out palm first and go back to school if you want to make more money instead of thinking it's better to take it from someone else.

[QUOTE="longhorn7"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

But technically these regulations are here to enforce exisitng laws, which would mean if Morgoth overturned the regulations we would have laws that aren't being enforced. Isn't that Problematic if the "president" can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to let people break?

JoeRatz16

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

Thus Morgoth (ie. Obama) is an illegitimate leader.

[QUOTE="longhorn7"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

But technically these regulations are here to enforce exisitng laws, which would mean if Morgoth overturned the regulations we would have laws that aren't being enforced. Isn't that Problematic if the "president" can pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to let people break?

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

Thus Morgoth (ie. Obama) is an illegitimate leader.

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.xaos

Also think of this: If the Doctor is morally against the procedure and has to be coerced into performing this, his mind won't be really into it, which could increase the chances of him making a mistake (or purposesly misperforming the procedure and saying it was a mistake, especially if he gets angry).

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm in complete agreement with this.Someone who comes in for a medical procedure should not need to rely on whether or not the medical practitioner "feels like it" in order to get the treatment that they ask for that is legal within society.nocoolnamejim

Considering that the "medical procedure" is elective and not (at least in most cases) a life-saving measure and that, last I checked, a doctor could open up a private practice and specialize in areas he or she felt comfortable in, your assertion strikes me as kind of ridiculous.

By your flimsy standards, a person who wants a nose job should be able to force a doctor to do it.

Broken logic.

You're equating bigotry to a doctor not feeling comfortable performing a procedure that he or she may be fundamentally uncomfortable with and goes against the hippocratic oath. The race analogy is a broken attempt at race-baiting, to be honest.

Oh absolutely, demonizing "the opposition" is a huge peeve of mine, and is something I've seen really explode in my lifetime. I have no doubt JoeRatz and Shame-usBlackley are speaking from moral conviction and their beliefs and don't in any way think of them as "bad people" for that. I just am utterly opposed to where their moral convictions have led them :)xaos

Where did I profess a moral conviction one way or the other? What I am against is Big Brother stepping in and telling doctors what they will and will not do. Whether I am pro-choice or pro-life has nothing to do with it.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Considering that the "medical procedure" is elective and not (at least in most cases) a life-saving measure and that, last I checked, a doctor could open up a private practice and specialize in areas he or she felt comfortable in, your assertion strikes me as kind of ridiculous.

By your flimsy standards, a person who wants a nose job should be able to force a doctor to do it.

Shame-usBlackley

Broken logic.

You're equating bigotry to a doctor not feeling comfortable performing a procedure that he or she may be fundamentally uncomfortable with and goes against the hippocratic oath. The race analogy is a broken attempt at race-baiting, to be honest.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Considering that the "medical procedure" is elective and not (at least in most cases) a life-saving measure and that, last I checked, a doctor could open up a private practice and specialize in areas he or she felt comfortable in, your assertion strikes me as kind of ridiculous.

By your flimsy standards, a person who wants a nose job should be able to force a doctor to do it.

Shame-usBlackley

Broken logic.

You're equating bigotry to a doctor not feeling comfortable performing a procedure that he or she may be fundamentally uncomfortable with and goes against the hippocratic oath. The race analogy is a broken attempt at race-baiting, to be honest.

I disagree with this. If a doctor feels that abortion is murder, he should not be given the ultimatum of "Do the abortion, or get another job!".

Beyond this, I simply don't like the government making decisions on moral issues like this and taking the power away from the people. The previous bill was good: It protected the doctor's rights, and let them have their opinions without worrying about legal pressure.

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="longhorn7"]all things aside i find it interesting that you put president in quotations. seems like a troll move to me....longhorn7

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

Thus Morgoth (ie. Obama) is an illegitimate leader.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="3KindgomsRandy"]

It's hardly difficult to find qualified doctors willing to perform such procedures. Do we really need to give qualified medical personnel who object to one particular procedure reason to leave the field when they are so desperately needed??

3KindgomsRandy

Realistically, it's hardly like they're refusing to perform heart surgery or something life saving. Your talking about choice, and frankly I see no need to enforce a regulation that requires someone else to accept your choice. Don't get me wrong, I've long ago realized and accepted the necessity of abortion, I still can't rationalize this decision, except in cases of a life saving event. Then they should absolutely be required. But for a run of the mill "I don't want this baby" for ANY reason at all, it seems silly to me to force.

If assisted suicide becomes legalized tomorrow, are all doctors required to accept that? Where do we draw the line?

Luckily in the state of Oregon they have to, and its not like a person can just walk in and say I want to kill myself and they'll pull out a needle and give it to the guy. The person has to be suffering for a terminal illness, one that will probably end up with them suffering before they die.

I have it in my living will that if I am unable to make that decision myself my person in charge of health care can make it for me which I requested to have done. Nothing wrong about wanting to avoid suffering and draw it out.

[QUOTE="xaos"]Great news! People who enter the health care field should be willing to provide health care, and if not, should find a career better suited to their beliefs.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="xaos"] Oh absolutely, demonizing "the opposition" is a huge peeve of mine, and is something I've seen really explode in my lifetime. I have no doubt JoeRatz and Shame-usBlackley are speaking from moral conviction and their beliefs and don't in any way think of them as "bad people" for that. I just am utterly opposed to where their moral convictions have led them :)Shame-usBlackley

Where did I profess a moral conviction one way or the other? What I am against is Big Brother stepping in and telling doctors what they will and will not do.

I have no interest in us debating the personhood and rights of a fetus, because no good will come of it, since we are both very firmly entrenched in our beliefs on it. Besides, it's pretty silly for two men to be going on about what a woman should or shouldn't be able to do with her body.xaos

That's fine, leave you and I out of it. You must understand, though, that SOME doctors will take that oath to pertain to an unborn child, particularly if they believe life begins at conception, right? Just like a doctor may take the oath to NOT apply to it.

Forget about what you and I think, is it not logical that a doctor might or might not struggle with the very notion? And if it is indeed such a personal decision that we respect a woman to make, why not a doctor?

[QUOTE="xaos"]I have no interest in us debating the personhood and rights of a fetus, because no good will come of it, since we are both very firmly entrenched in our beliefs on it. Besides, it's pretty silly for two men to be going on about what a woman should or shouldn't be able to do with her body.Shame-usBlackley

That's fine, leave you and I out of it. You must understand, though, that SOME doctors will take that oath to pertain to an unborn child, particularly if they believe life begins at conception, right? Just like a doctor may take the oath to NOT apply to it.

Forget about what you and I think, is it not logical that a doctor might or might not struggle with the very notion? And if it is indeed such a personal decision that we respect a woman to make, why not a doctor?

You know........some people have no clue how this world works. Not a clue.

"Regular" abortions are done at abortions clinics (Planned Parenthood, etc) by doctors who specialize in abortions. Women don't go to their regular Family Practice doctor and tellhim/her to give them an abortion.

Doctors have to be trained/certified to perform medical procedures, including abortions. That's why "abortion" doctors generally only do abortions & nothing else.

The only time a regular, everyday doctor would perform an abortion is for an extreme case where the mother's life is in critical danger.

EDIT: Sorry, mods. I realized my mistake and came back to edit.....but you beat me to it :o

No, I am making a point that a doctor doesn't get to pick and choose when he/she gets to be a doctor based on their own moral code. Their responsibility is to provide health care for people who need and ask for it irregardless of their own personal beliefs. Substitute in a doctor refusing to treat a drug addict if you find that analogy more comfortable.nocoolnamejim

You were indeed. One is an issue of being unwilling to perform a procedure because it goes against the tenets of the hippocratic oath as perceived by the doctor. Your analogy was being unwilling to perform a procedure based on skin color, which is a ridiculous coparison, frankly.

I don't think there are many doctors out there who are opting not to perform an abortion because they have a fundamental hatred for the racial background of the patient, ffs.

How does one treat a drug addict? More drugs? I seriously don't know. I know when I quit smoking I just stopped and went through the shakes and mood swings for a week or so until it went away, and they say nicotine is every bit as addictive as heroin. But for argument's sake, having an abortion is still a completely different situation morally than treating a drug addict from a morality standpoint.

[QUOTE="longhorn7"]

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....

Thus Morgoth (ie. Obama) is an illegitimate leader.

JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] No, I am making a point that a doctor doesn't get to pick and choose when he/she gets to be a doctor based on their own moral code. Their responsibility is to provide health care for people who need and ask for it irregardless of their own personal beliefs. Substitute in a doctor refusing to treat a drug addict if you find that analogy more comfortable.Shame-usBlackley

You were indeed. One is an issue of being unwilling to perform a procedure because it goes against the tenets of the hippocratic oath as perceived by the doctor. Your analogy was being unwilling to perform a procedure based on skin color, which is a ridiculous coparison, frankly.

I don't think there are many doctors out there who are opting not to perform an abortion because they have a fundamental hatred for the racial background of the patient, ffs.

How does one treat a drug addict? More drugs? I seriously don't know. I know when I quit smoking I just stopped and went through the shakes and mood swings for a week or so until it went away, and they say nicotine is every bit as addictive as heroin. But for argument's sake, having an abortion is still a completely different situation morally than treating a drug addict from a morality standpoint.

I have no doubt that some doctors WILL take their oath to mean that. And I can also see how a doctor might struggle with the notion. However, the laws of the country/state that give them their certification to practice medicine have to apply to the doctors in question if they want to continue to have that right. What I would suggest, if I was in the shoes of the doctor in question, would be to recommend another doctor or ask the hospital administrator to swap me patients with someone else. But the lady in question shouldn't be turned away or be unable to get her medical need - which is completely and perfectly legal and has been for decades - because a doctor refuses treatment. Ultimately, it isn't the doctor's body. It is the woman's. And the laws of this country give the person whose body it is ultimate jurisdiction and final say on treatment performed. Lastly, doctors go through a LOT of schooling. They are fully aware of what the laws of treatment are when they take the oath. If they foresee themselves unable to perform this treatment, then they shouldn't take the oath. Returning to an earlier example, that's like someone joining the army but saying, "I'll fight anywhere you want me to and kill anyone from any country EXCEPT Canada. I got buddies and family in Canada and so wouldn't feel comfortable." It doesn't work that way.nocoolnamejim

Isn't referring the patient to someone else or swapping patients essentially the same thing? I mean, what's the difference between a doctor saying "I don't do abortions, sorry" and "I don't do abortions, sorry, but here's a referral to one who does"? Very little, since in BOTH cases the patient will find a doctor who does perform them. It's mincing words, really.

And with the oath, you are looking at if from a standpoint of it being in absolute certainty that the oath means "save lives at all costs" in reference to the mother and not the unborn. Your analogy of military service is also disingenuous, because I think a good many people would go AWOL if they had to attack a country where their family and friends were. It's not something they were taking into account when they signed up.

And lastly, define who you are "treating" when you perform an abortion. That statement can go either way.

No It is only a different situation morally because YOU think it is. Because it conflicts with your own moral code. And that's the problem. Each doctor has a slightly different view of morality than the next doctor. But when they agree to be a doctor, they agree to allow the laws of society to have final say to ensure consistency. In both cases, yours with abortion and mine with skin color, a hypothetical doctor is substituting his own morality for that of society. You find my example ridiculous because of your views on abortion, but logically, the two situations are identical.nocoolnamejim

More ridiculousness.

It IS a different situation, because something ends up being killed in only one of them. Do you understand that? My moral code has nothing to do with it. Whether you believe it's a baby or not, the truth is that it IS being killed because it IS alive -- it has a beating heart, fingernails, and a developing brain.

Both comparisons are broken. The doctor refusing to treat the druggie doesn't end the druggie's life. A racist doctor refusing to mend a broken bone does not end the patient's life. They are not identical. They are not even similar.

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="longhorn7"]so because a non catholic president does not follow the guidelines of the catechism of the catholic church means that he is an illegitimate leader? separation of church and state buddy. may want to read the constitution. religion =/= politics in this country, and as the bush administration has proved, that separation is a good thing. Thanks for making all of us catholics seem ignorant though i really appreciate it... and all of this aside it still doesnt explain how he is the "president" to you and not the president. if he is just the "president" who in your eyes is the president?

longhorn7