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

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 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.Shame-usBlackley

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.

Yes, if they aren't willing to do their job. If I told my manager that I found programming in Java to be morally repugnant (which I kind of do) and against my religion, I don't think that I could reasonably expect him to accommodate that and keep me in my position.xaos

You and me both, buddy. Java is satan's lost child.

Anyway, I read all three pages and I find that everything you all keep saying is just rehashed. It's simple. When someone doesn't like what their job has become, they find another. Why should doctors be any different?

[QUOTE="longhorn7"]

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] Not quite sure: Maybe Bush or Maybe McCain. Maybe since Roe v. Wade the Whole U.S. gov't is illegitimate and thus there hasn't been a legitimate President since then, in which case Francis Cardinal George is President of The USCCB and may then be considered the real president.

JoeRatz16

2. I am not arguing for the Church running the State, I am just saying that the State is not above the divine law and if the State refuses to defend the rights of it's citizens, the State then is illegitimate because the very purpose of Gov't is to uphold the rights of it's citizens.JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 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.

what if the Doctor isn't trained to perform abortions? then shouldn't he be able to refuse? And if the Doctor performing the abortion is morally against it, doesn't that put him in a bad mindframe and make it more likely he could make a mistake? What if the Doctor feels the abortion is not in the best interest of the patient.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 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.Shame-usBlackley

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.

what if the Doctor isn't trained to perform abortions? then shouldn't he be able to refuse? And if the Doctor performing the abortion is morally against it, doesn't that put him in a bad mindframe and make it more likely he could make a mistake? What if the Doctor feels the abortion is not in the best interest of the patient.JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] 2. I am not arguing for the Church running the State, I am just saying that the State is not above the divine law and if the State refuses to defend the rights of it's citizens, the State then is illegitimate because the very purpose of Gov't is to uphold the rights of it's citizens.Engrish_Major

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

what if the Doctor isn't trained to perform abortions? then shouldn't he be able to refuse? And if the Doctor performing the abortion is morally against it, doesn't that put him in a bad mindframe and make it more likely he could make a mistake? What if the Doctor feels the abortion is not in the best interest of the patient.

JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] 2. I am not arguing for the Church running the State, I am just saying that the State is not above the divine law and if the State refuses to defend the rights of it's citizens, the State then is illegitimate because the very purpose of Gov't is to uphold the rights of it's citizens.JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]what if the Doctor isn't trained to perform abortions? then shouldn't he be able to refuse? And if the Doctor performing the abortion is morally against it, doesn't that put him in a bad mindframe and make it more likely he could make a mistake? What if the Doctor feels the abortion is not in the best interest of the patient.Engrish_Major

[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.danjammer69

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]what if the Doctor isn't trained to perform abortions? then shouldn't he be able to refuse? And if the Doctor performing the abortion is morally against it, doesn't that put him in a bad mindframe and make it more likely he could make a mistake? What if the Doctor feels the abortion is not in the best interest of the patient.JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Fetuses are not citizens.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 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.

Maybe if you were the law, but in the Real World,a doctor can indeed opt to not perform an abortion if the life of the mother isn't at risk. I think you're tripping a bit over your own analogies. There are no repercussions for a doctor opting to not perform an abortion currently. And last I checked, I haven't seen reports of women lining up in queue or suffering through long periods of waiting to get an abortion. And further still, why a woman (if the woman's health is the top concern as you profess) would want a doctor who was fundamentally uncomfortable with the procedure he or she was being forced to do working on her is beyond me.

So then if a fetus is different from a human being, then what makes a human being a human being? The only difference between a fetus and a human being is age, thus one could say that people under 6 years old are not human beings. Anyway "a person is a person no matter how small"- Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who.JoeRatz16

Unless the doctor is employed by the government, I object completely to this. Is a private lawyer obligated to accept every client that requests his services?

[QUOTE="danjammer69"][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.longhorn7

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]what if the Doctor isn't trained to perform abortions? then shouldn't he be able to refuse? And if the Doctor performing the abortion is morally against it, doesn't that put him in a bad mindframe and make it more likely he could make a mistake? What if the Doctor feels the abortion is not in the best interest of the patient.Engrish_Major

That's why I keep shaking my head when I read this thread. "Regular" doctors aren't trained to do abortions and therefore wouldn't perform them.

Doctors have to be trained/certified to perform medical procedures. Abortion doctors generally only do abortions.

Maybe if you were the law, but in the Real World,a doctor can indeed opt to not perform an abortion if the life of the mother isn't at risk. I think you're tripping a bit over your own analogies. There are no repercussions for a doctor opting to not perform an abortion currently. And last I checked, I haven't seen reports of women lining up in queue or suffering through long periods of waiting to get an abortion. And further still, why a woman (if the woman's health is the top concern as you profess) would want a doctor who was fundamentally uncomfortable with the procedure he or she was being forced to do working on her is beyond me.

Shame-usBlackley

Unless the doctor is employed by the government, I object completely to this. Is a private lawyer obligated to accept every client that requests his services?

thepwninator

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]So then if a fetus is different from a human being, then what makes a human being a human being? The only difference between a fetus and a human being is age, thus one could say that people under 6 years old are not human beings. Anyway "a person is a person no matter how small"- Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]

Unless the doctor is employed by the government, I object completely to this. Is a private lawyer obligated to accept every client that requests his services?

Setsa

[QUOTE="longhorn7"][QUOTE="danjammer69"] But when it comes to abortion, it is just not that simple. To some people, the taking of an innocent life is really that big of a moral dilemma (which it should be), whether or not you personally support abortion rights. There is no cut and dry answer to this.JoeRatz16

so then Location is what determines who is and who is not human and thus who gets and doesn't get human rights? Thus in one case we can say that people in the U.S. are humans and people in Africa are not because they are located in different places?JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="Setsa"][QUOTE="thepwninator"]

Unless the doctor is employed by the government, I object completely to this. Is a private lawyer obligated to accept every client that requests his services?

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]so then Location is what determines who is and who is not human and thus who gets and doesn't get human rights? Thus in one case we can say that people in the U.S. are humans and people in Africa are not because they are located in different places?Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]so then Location is what determines who is and who is not human and thus who gets and doesn't get human rights? Thus in one case we can say that people in the U.S. are humans and people in Africa are not because they are located in different places?Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Setsa"][QUOTE="thepwninator"]

Unless the doctor is employed by the government, I object completely to this. Is a private lawyer obligated to accept every client that requests his services?

JoeRatz16

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]so then Location is what determines who is and who is not human and thus who gets and doesn't get human rights? Thus in one case we can say that people in the U.S. are humans and people in Africa are not because they are located in different places?JoeRatz16

Only citizens are guaranteed basic human rights? That's news to me.thepwninator

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Maybe if you were the law, but in the Real World,a doctor can indeed opt to not perform an abortion if the life of the mother isn't at risk. I think you're tripping a bit over your own analogies. There are no repercussions for a doctor opting to not perform an abortion currently. And last I checked, I haven't seen reports of women lining up in queue or suffering through long periods of waiting to get an abortion. And further still, why a woman (if the woman's health is the top concern as you profess) would want a doctor who was fundamentally uncomfortable with the procedure he or she was being forced to do working on her is beyond me.

nocoolnamejim

You got more than your tenses mixed up. In an earlier post, you argued that the "consequences" for refusing to perform an abortion (even under the new plan) would probably involve the doctor losing their license. That's not even what it says. It specifies in relation to "discrimination" against a doctor for refusing to perform an abortion, and how those protections would be taken away. It says nothing about loss of license. The doctor could just as soon then go to a Catholic or other religiously-affiliated hospital and resume his or her practice.

So does that mean doctors should be forced to perform boob-jobs and nose-jobs if they disagree with it?

JoeRatz16

What a silly argument.

There's no reason why a plastic surgeon morally disagree with plastic surgery. If they did, then they wasted all that time & money on their education & training.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]Only citizens are guaranteed basic human rights? That's news to me.Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="thepwninator"]Only citizens are guaranteed basic human rights? That's news to me.thepwninator

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

Maybe if you were the law, but in the Real World,a doctor can indeed opt to not perform an abortion if the life of the mother isn't at risk. I think you're tripping a bit over your own analogies. There are no repercussions for a doctor opting to not perform an abortion currently. And last I checked, I haven't seen reports of women lining up in queue or suffering through long periods of waiting to get an abortion. And further still, why a woman (if the woman's health is the top concern as you profess) would want a doctor who was fundamentally uncomfortable with the procedure he or she was being forced to do working on her is beyond me.

Shame-usBlackley

You got more than your tenses mixed up. In an earlier post, you argued that the "consequences" for refusing to perform an abortion (even under the new plan) would probably involve the doctor losing their license. That's not even what it says. It specifies in relation to "discrimination" against a doctor for refusing to perform an abortion, and how those protections would be taken away. It says nothing about loss of license. The doctor could just as soon then go to a Catholic or other religiously-affiliated hospital and resume his or her practice.

You're just nitpicking now. I'm not a lawyer or a doctor. I'm postulating what the consequences would be. I have no idea what they are and it probably varies a bit based on where the doctor is practicing medicine. Nothing you're saying is taking away from my overall point that nobody would hold a gun to the doctor's head and MAKE them perform an abortion. They could still refuse to do it, so long as they were willing to suffer the consequences that the jurisdiction they were operating in had in place. Do you have a substantive reply to my overall point that a doctor could still refuse to do the operation if they genuinely felt that it would be a murder if they were willing to suffer the consequences of their refusal or do you have any other completely irrelevant tangents that you want to go down? I notice you also still haven't replied to my earlier point that, no matter how you cut it, a doctor refusing to perform a medical operation based on his/her own moral code is substituting their own moral judgment for that of the society/law they operate under.nocoolnamejim

Yep, I was nitpicking when I told you your racial analogy was busted, too, right? I was nitpicking when I told you refusing to treat someone with heroin withdrawal symptons was in no way analgous to refusing to perfom an abortion. And I'm nitpicking now because I'm surprised you don't even know what the point of contention is to begin with. I guess I'm just a nitpicky guy. :P

I missed your other post. I'll read it and reply.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] You're just nitpicking now. I'm not a lawyer or a doctor. I'm postulating what the consequences would be. I have no idea what they are and it probably varies a bit based on where the doctor is practicing medicine. Nothing you're saying is taking away from my overall point that nobody would hold a gun to the doctor's head and MAKE them perform an abortion. They could still refuse to do it, so long as they were willing to suffer the consequences that the jurisdiction they were operating in had in place. Do you have a substantive reply to my overall point that a doctor could still refuse to do the operation if they genuinely felt that it would be a murder if they were willing to suffer the consequences of their refusal or do you have any other completely irrelevant tangents that you want to go down? I notice you also still haven't replied to my earlier point that, no matter how you cut it, a doctor refusing to perform a medical operation based on his/her own moral code is substituting their own moral judgment for that of the society/law they operate under.Shame-usBlackley

Yep, I was nitpicking when I told you your racial analogy was busted, too, right? I was nitpicking when I told you refusing to treat someone with heroin withdrawal symptons was in no way analgous to refusing to perfom an abortion. And I'm nitpicking now because I'm surprised you don't even know what the point of contention is to begin with. I guess I'm just a nitpicky guy. :P

I missed your other post. I'll read it and reply.

So much for pro-choice.

I find this a breach of civil rights and a forced-secularist movement, even as a person who is pro-choice (in that the option should be available).

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 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.

[No, and I don't know how to explain this any clearer to you than this, your statement "It IS a different situation, because something ends up being killed in only one of them" is only YOUR interpretation based on your own morality! It is NOT the interpretation of society or society's laws at this time. It is applying YOUR moral codes to the situation. If I don't find a fetus to be a baby - just like an egg isn't necessarily a baby chicken - then your analogy completely falls apart. Which means, still, that my point stands. The doctor is applying his own moral code in determining that the fetus is a baby when refusing treatment and not the moral and legal code of the society in which he practices. Which is, logically, no different than someone whose moral code told him that it is wrong to give treatment to a drug addict who is dying of a drug overdose treatment because the drug addict isn't worth the bother. In both cases, and there is no getting around this, the doctor in question is applying his own moral code and overriding that of society. We can argue on which is the worst result, but what is taking place is the same. Really, there is no getting around this. Each reply you make you are basing your arguments based on your own view of morality and passing them off as undebateable fact. That is why my arguments seem "ridiculous" to you.nocoolnamejim

If you don't understand that, mechanically, something that was once alive (prven by the fact of its beating heart) is no longer alive after a procedure, then I can't help you. Something that was alive once is not alive any longer, whether it's a tree or a blade of grass or an insect or a human. It's dead. You don't get that, do you? It's not a moral question, it's a fact. Alive - DEAD.

Your point is still completely ignorant of this.

The doctor is making a choice based on the guideline of what he sees and what he KNOWS with MEDICAL CERTAINTY is alive. There's a heartbeat. It's alive, remember? Dead things don't have heartbeats. Cars don't have heartbeats. A safety deposit box doesn't have a hearbeat. A living thing does. The doctor makes a decision with that in mind -- he or she could go either way, but it's ultimately a personal decision based on what constitutes life and whether or not they can be selective in their mindset that all life should be preserved.

And the druggie question is still unanswered.What medical procedure can a doctor offer a drug addict? It's a really flimsy, lame attempt at tying two unrelated things together. Your arguments seem ridiculous to me, because they are ridiculous.

[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

You said my racial analogy was busted, but then were quickly proven wrong logically. The same way your saying refusing to treat a drug addict was proven wrong logically. In both cases, my reply was the same: It is logically identical because in both cases it is a doctor substituting their own moral judgment for that of the society they operate in. None of the times I've said it have you yet responded to that basic point. You responded, basically, "it isn't the same because abortion is murder!" to which I replied that statement, too, is a moral judgment. Simply saying over and over again that you're right without actually addressing my point doesn't make it so.nocoolnamejim

You get dizzier by the second. Okay, here:

A doctor refuses to treat a black patient with a broken leg. Racism.

A doctor refuses to perform an abortion. Moral dilemma.

Moral dilemma does not equal bigotry.

Your analogy is broken. I've been explaining this to you for two pages. If you put bigotry and morality on the same page, then you're beyond help and the discussion is pointless anyway.

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]Non-citizens are not guaranteed protection, but they still have basic human rights. They can be violated without legal repercussion, yes, but stripping others of their rights without cause is immoral.ChiliDragon

If a doctor is a Jehovah's Witness, can he deny a patient a blood transfusion?

If a doctor is a Jehovah's Witness, can he deny a patient a blood transfusion?

Oleg_Huzwog